University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE AT-RISK STUDENT PERSPECTIVE OF EDUCATION IN AN
ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM

by
Kelli Eileen DuCloux

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

May 2009

Copyright 2009 Kelli Eileen DuCloux

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables iv

List of Figures v

Abstract vi

CHAPTER 1: AT-RISK STUDENTS IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION 1
Background of the Problem 3
Statement of the Problem 23
Purpose of the Study 26
Research Questions 31
Significance of the Problem 31
Methodology 33
Assumptions 33
Limitations 33
Delimitations 33
Definition of Terms 34
Organization of the Study 34

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 36
Literature Review 36
Study Purpose and Expectations 56
Conclusions 63
Implications 64

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 66
Research Questions 66
Research Design 66
Population and Sample 66
Instrumentation 67
Data Collection 69
Data Analysis 69

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 71
Descriptive Statistics 71
Findings 73
Summary of Findings 80

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 82
Review of Findings 82
Implications for Theory 86
Implications for Research 88
Implications for Practice 93
Conclusions 98
iii

References 101

Appendices
Appendix A: The WIHIC Survey 114
Appendix B: Informed Consent 116

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Study Participants by Gender 71
Table 2: Study Participants by Ethnicity 72
Table 3: Study Participants by Ethnicity and Gender 72
Table 4: Gender * Ethnicity Cross tabulation 73
Table 5: Gender differences in perception on subscales TS, IV, TO and WIHIC 75
Table 6: Treatment Effect 76
Table 7: Analysis of Variance for Significant Differences in Perception 77
Table 8: Black and Hispanic differences in perception on IV-organizational 78
environment and TO-self-efficacy
Table 9: Cronbach’s Alpha 79
Table 10: Treatment Effect Ethnicity 80
v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Student Ethnicity in Riverside County 15
Figure 2: Student Ethnicity in RCOE 16
Figure 3: Student Ethnicity in RCOE Community Schools 17
Figure 4: RCOE Enrollments 2000-2001 19
Figure 5: RCOE Enrollments 2002-2003 20
Figure 6: RCOE Enrollments 2004-2005 21
Figure 7: RCOE Enrollments 2006-2007 22

vi

ABSTRACT
This study sought to examine student perspectives of school characteristics within
an Alternative Education setting. Key characteristics of Alternative Education include
social connections or supportive relationships, self-efficacy or individuality, and
organizational environment. Female and male students of various ethnic groups
attending a county community school were surveyed with the elementary version of the
What is Happening in this Classroom instrument. Students rated their perceptions of their
experiences via a Likert scale. Significant differences were observed on all school
characteristics between female and male students. Differences were also observed
between ethnic groups on school characteristics but only significantly between Black and
Hispanic students.
1

CHAPTER 1
AT-RISK STUDENTS IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION
Graduating from high school is associated with a number of benefits. For
example, students who graduate from high school reportedly earn 30% more than those
without a high school diploma (Education Atlas, 2006). Regrettably, 1out of 4 ninth
graders will not graduate from high school with their class (Norlinger, 2007). In 2002, the
national high school graduation rate was 71% (Greene & Winters, 2005). Disaggregating
the dropout rate by race and ethnicity reveals a grimmer story for African Americans and
Hispanic students. According to Greene & Winters (2005), the graduation rates for these
groups were 56% and 55% respectively within the traditional school setting.
According to these data, anywhere from 3 to 5 out of 10 students in our country
will not graduate from high school. Students who are in danger of not graduating from
high school are referred to as “at-risk” (Rozycki, 2004). Addressing the needs of at-risk
students is crucial because of the negative impacts of entering adulthood illiterate,
engaging in criminal activity due to the inability to secure employment,
underemployment, overburdening social programs, and becoming involved in the
criminal justice system (Krashen, 1999; De la Rosa, 1998; Caruba, 1991; Ellis, 2007).
The United Way’s Literacy Report found that the city of Los Angeles in
particular, ranks highest in low literacy rates among major U.S. cities with 53% of
working-age adults having low literacy skills and 48% lacking the skills to read a bus
schedule (United Way, 2007). Sixty-eight percent of state prison inmates did not have a
high school diploma, according to a U.S. Department of Justice Report (Harlow, 2003).
The state of Ohio reported a higher dropout rate among its inmates, between 75-85%
2

(Frankart, 2000), and it is reportedly at 85% for the state of New Hampshire (Moskowitz,
2006).
Furthermore, as a nation we are failing to educate our citizenry to adequate levels
competitively. Fewer and fewer jobs are going to be available for the high percentage of
at-risk students who eventually fail to graduate or who graduate with minimal skills and
qualifications (Katz, 2007). Moreover, many jobs are being outsourced to other countries
where labor is cheaper (Sherry, 2007). This change in the location and source of global
productivity “signifies a redistribution of trained capability” (National Commission on
Excellence, 1983, p.22). The current status of public education is detrimental not only on
an individual level as we see many students failing to graduate, but also on the level of
the U.S. work force which is decreasing due to the inability to fill jobs with educated
individuals living in America.
Within the “at-risk” category is a sub-group of students who experience serious
behavioral or disciplinary problems forcing them out of traditional schools (Fine, 1986).
Schiraldi and Ziedenberg (2001) reported the numbers of students being suspended as
having increased from 1.7 million to 3.2 million between the years of 1974 and 1998. By
failing to focus on the educational achievement of at-risk students, particularly those who
have been removed or pushed out of traditional schools, schools are creating an
increasing number of disenfranchised youth who will not have the opportunities for
success but will suffer from predisposed pathways of limitation (Cushman, 1998).
This study will explore the at-risk student perspective of education. Specifically,
this study will address how students who are removed or pushed out of traditional schools
perceive education. These students receive education in an alternative school setting. This
3

study seeks to analyze Alternative Education (AE) through the eyes of students attending
a county AE program in Southern California. We also seek to discover if there are
similarities or differences in student perception based on student differences such as
ethnic or gender background.
Background of the Problem
Alternative Education
Within the at-risk student population, “pushed out” or “diverted” students
constitute a unique group. These are students who leave the traditional school setting
usually due to expulsion, suspension, or dropping out. Expulsion and suspension are
consequences meted out by school districts to those students who violate serious
behavioral or disciplinary codes. Some of these students will not return to traditional
school at all, while others may make attempts to continue their education in an alternative
school setting (Potts & Njie, 2003).
Alternative Education is defined as a separate program within a K-12 public
school district or charter school established to serve and provide youth a choice or option
whose needs are not being met in the traditional school setting (MDOE, 2007). AE
includes a wide umbrella of settings such as independent or “free schools” and magnet
schools, as well as schools for students who have been removed from the traditional
school setting due to severe behavior or disciplinary issues (Mintz, 1994). Alternative
schools are “public schools set up by states or school districts to serve populations of
students who are not succeeding in the traditional public school environment (Boss, 1998,
p.4). This study will focus on students attending this last designation of alternative school
4

setting as a means of addressing the decreasing national high school graduation rate
(Greene & Winters, 2005; Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2001).
AE provides an arena where marginalized students, those who drop out or are
pushed out, can make progress towards graduation, a GED, or transition back into the
traditional school setting. AE programs create a more positive learning environment
through (a) individualized and self-paced instruction, (b) noncompetitive assessments,
and (c) less-rigid classrooms (Raywid, 1983). Alternative Education is reportedly more
successful for at-risk students in these situations as compared to the traditional school
setting (Barr & Parrett, 2003). It is “often the most effective approach to keeping students
in school and helping them catch up academically and achieve high standards” (Barr &
Parrett, 2003, p. 118).
General characteristics of AE include small classroom sizes, a sense of
community, supportive environment, and caring yet demanding teachers (IDE, 2006;
Young, 1990). Alternative schools which serve challenging students have also been
characterized as having: strong leadership, lower student-to-staff ratios, carefully selected
personnel, pro-social skill training, strict behavior requirements, intensive counseling and
mentoring, and district-wide support of the programs (Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, 2004).
Raywid (1994) developed a three-tier category system for alternative schools
based on her analysis of the AE literature. The AE categories include: Type I which is for
all students; Type II which is mandatory for “forced choice” students; and Type III which
is for socially/emotionally challenged students. Type I schools are true educational
alternatives based on the belief that all students can learn. Students choose to attend this
5

type of school and the programs are designed to meet the students’ educational needs.
Type II schools are the disciplinary alternative education programs. These schools are for
students who have been removed from the traditional school setting due to discipline or
behavioral problems. The purpose of Type II schools is to provide an educational setting
for “forced choice” students until such a time as they satisfy the necessary requirements
that will enable them to return to the traditional school setting.
The third type of alternative school constitutes therapeutic programs. In this
alternative school setting, the purpose is to provide counseling to address the
social/emotional challenges of students. This purpose is different from Type II schools
which seek to implement behavioral modifications in students by teaching them
compliance skills. Therapeutic programs, on the other hand, seek to affect change in
students via the counseling process (Raywid, 1994; Gold, 1995).
Raywid’s classification system is a general categorical system to better
understand the different types of AE schools. However, it is not guaranteed that every
alternative school or program will fit neatly into a packaged classification cell. The
classification system sheds light on the “who” factor when the discussion of AE students
and subgroups of “at-risk students” is analyzed more deeply. Given that this study
focuses on a specific clientele of at-risk student within the AE setting, e.g. forced choice
students, Raywid’s classification system provides a general basis for understanding the
type of AE setting this study highlights.
Benefits of AE for At-Risk Students
In the traditional school setting, at-risk students at the high school level have
experienced about a decade of school failure, humiliation, despair, and defeat (Barr &
6

Parrett, 1995). Two-thirds of the factors that have made these students at-risk, the
individual and social factors, e.g. poverty, dysfunctional families, and mental issues, have
been compounded by the community factors of school tracking and retention (Farrington,
2000; Shader, 2007). The AE setting addresses the issues that make it difficult for at-risk
students to be successful academically, providing a greater degree of support and
flexibility as well as clear directions and goals for students (IDE, 2006). At-risk students
in AE experience a more positive learning environment (Raywid, 1983) due to decreased
stress and pressure from one-size-fits-all curricula (Gold & Mann, 1984). According to
Barr and Parrett (1997), the most important characteristic of the AE setting that increases
academic success for at-risk students are the high levels of community support and
surrogate family atmosphere.
For many at-risk students, the AE setting is the first academic setting in which
they have experienced a modicum of success (Barr & Parrett, 1995). The AE setting is a
noncompetitive environment and at-risk students are, for once, not compared to other
students. Students are allowed to progress through a subject at their own pace and ability
level with appropriate teacher support. As a result of these self-paced environments,
students experience higher self-esteem, more positive attitudes toward school, improved
school attendance, higher academic performance, and decreased delinquent behaviors
(Cox, Davidson, & Bynum, 1995).
AE Study Limitations
Studies on alternative education frequently describe program and student
characteristics (Foley & Pang, 2006; De la Rosa, 1998; Lange & Lehr, 2003). Fewer
studies actually queried the students themselves (Nichols & Utesch, 1998; Castleberry &
7

Enger, 1998). Nichols and Utesch (1998) studied the constructs of self-esteem and
motivation as a means of assessing the effectiveness of an AE program. In that study,
there was a sample size of 65 students which, as the authors admit, is a limitation
preventing the analysis of data according to subgroup differences (i.e. gender, ethnicity,
SES). Castleberry and Enger (1998) studied student perceptions of success, both in an
Alternative Learning Environment and in life. Their sample size was 173 students but
their study failed to address the issue of subgroup differences. There was no mention of
ethnic differences or differences attributable to gender. Both studies described their
student demographics, showing percentages greater than 25% for Black and White
students, although neither had percentages greater than 7% for Hispanics or any
delineation along gender lines. These studies with demographics so vastly different from
what is seen today, particularly in California which has a Hispanic population greater
than 50%, are major limitations of the research in AE. AE studies need to be conducted
that go beyond simply listing the sample demographics to utilizing them as a focus of
inquiry.
Another limitation of the literature is the absence of research specific to gender
differences. This may be a result of the fact that there are more boys than girls in AE
(Kelly, 1993). Kelly maintains that girls disengage from school in different ways than
boys, for different reasons and with different consequences. Moreover, Rizzo, Daley,
&Gunderson (2006) suggest that stressful interpersonal relationships are a focal point for
girls undergoing depression more so than boys. Therefore, the differences in how AE is
experienced by girls and boys may be interesting to explore and meaningful to
investigate.
8

Finally, the literature suggests that AE at-risk students learn differently (Raywid,
1994). It also suggests that interventions for AE need to be clientele specific (Barr &
Parrett, 2003; Barr & Parrett, 1997). It might further be the case that understanding the
experiences and needs of the demographic differences of AE at-risk students is an
important part in creating or enhancing academic interventions that promote
achievement. This is the basis for a need to examine gender and ethnic differences in
perception of education in an AE setting from a student voice perspective.
Measuring Success
Success indicators in AE must also be appropriate to this specific clientele of
student. Traditional performance-based student success indicators such as grades and
standardized test scores might not apply to AE students. Given their removal from
traditional settings via expulsion and suspensions for disciplinary or behavioral
violations, these students tend to not have continuous school records. From my personal
experience, many AE students don’t have the corresponding age-appropriate high school
credits. For instance, an 18-year-old student may have only 65 credits, and the norm for
graduation is 220 credits.
Thus, other methods are necessary to determine student success for academically
unsuccessful students. Zandveliet and Fraser (1998) used student satisfaction with school
as a non-performance-based indicator of student success. Student satisfaction with school
can be correlated with other indicators that can be measured such as retention,
attendance, and persistence (Black, 2007). Students who are not satisfied with school do
not attend school regularly and eventually may drop out. School satisfaction is influenced
by student perceptions of classroom environment, student-teacher relations, and self-
9

efficacy (Black, 2007; Zandveliet & Fraser, 1998). This study seeks to explore student
perceptions of these factors within the AE setting.
AE students will either return to traditional schools or remain in the AE setting.
While in the AE setting, they will either complete enough credits to graduate or they will
drop out of school entirely. These students offer a critical insight about school that is
often ignored. This study further seeks to identify differences in student perspective
based on ethnicity and gender as a more thorough way to isolate and investigate the AE
setting factors: organizational environment, supportive relationships, and self-efficacy.
At-Risk Student Voices
Many negative factors, behaviors, and circumstances in a child’s life can lead him
or her to become at-risk of not graduating from high school. Within the category of “at-
risk student,” there are multiple subgroups. The focus of this study is “forced choice”
students, at-risk students being serviced in an AE setting. These students have been
forced out of or removed from the traditional school setting due to behavioral violations
or other severe disciplinary reasons. We know that these students are dealing with
multiple interacting risk factors which have made them unsuccessful in the traditional
school setting (Farrington, 2000). According to Barr and Parrett (1995), current practice
and policy in traditional schools has exacerbated the factors that contribute to a child
becoming at-risk, and further, forced these at-risk students out of regular school and into
alternative school settings. However, we haven’t taken the time to ask them what would
help them become successful (Farrell, Peguero, Lindsy, & White, 1998).
The voice of students in the alternative education setting is vital, in terms of what
helps them be successful academically. At-risk students in a school setting designed to
10

better meet their needs, e.g. the Alternative Education setting (Martin, Sugai, Tobin,
2002), can provide first-hand, participant perspectives and opinions. This opportunity
could prove beneficial by increasing the students’ vested interest in their academic
success by simply listening and adhering to their perspectives regarding what would
increase their academic achievement. Consequently, these students would have less of a
reason to behave disruptively if they started experiencing academic success.
Cox’s (1999) assessment of AE programs for delinquent at-risk youth suggested
that future investigations should explore why students are more successful in AE settings
as compared to when they were in traditional schools. Other researchers examined AE
program characteristics (Foley, 1998) and student outcomes and measures (Cox,
Davidson, & Bynum, 1995). Few studies have asked the students in this setting to voice
their opinion on their educational experiences (De la Ossa, 2005).
Including the alienated student voice is a key aspect of school reform that has not
occurred to a great degree (Johnston & Nichols, 1995). Many major school reform
movements have had their impetus in the AE setting (Barr & Parrett, 2001). Given this
precedent, the inclusion of the results from this unique student perspective and opinion
regarding what best helps them succeed can inform school-wide practice to reduce the
numbers of at-risk students who are being forced out of the traditional school setting.
Furthermore, these results will help address the systemic failure to graduate more than
half the Black and Latino student population.
Situational Statistics
The numbers of students who are being removed from the traditional school
setting is growing (Foley & Pang, 2006). Over one and a half million students were
11

removed from the traditional schools during the twenty-five year period ending with 1998
(Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2001). Social policy changes have created a greater blanket of
offenses that force a student to seek education in an alternative setting (Aarons, 2007).
With the creation of the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, districts across the
United States that wanted to maintain government funding, passed Zero Tolerance
policies such that any student in possession of a gun would be expelled (CDE, 2008).
Zero Tolerance violations now include fights, sexual harassment, terrorist threats or acts,
as well as the possession of weapons or drugs (Skiba, 2000). These changes in policy
forced many students out of the traditional school setting which then refers them to
Alternative Education programs (CDE, 2008). Because of the number of students
affected by these types of social policy changes, AE settings catering to this unique
population of student have also increased across the nation (Richart, Brooks, & Soler,
2007).
The incidence of “forced choice” students, those forced out of traditional school
and into AE placement settings, is difficult to determine as many students who are kicked
out for behavioral violations fail to enroll in a different secondary setting (De la Rosa,
1998). Of those who do enroll in a different secondary setting like an AE program,
figures are not extensive as to which ones complete high school within the AE program,
return to the traditional setting after completing expulsion contracts, or simply drop out
completely. However, one study (Castleberry & Enger, 1998), reported that 8,455
students were enrolled in an Alternative Learning Environment in Arkansas for the 1995-
96 school year. Twenty-three percent returned to the regular school district, twelve
12

percent dropped out, and ten percent transferred. Only eight percent graduated or
received a GED.
Alternative Education, although not a new concept for educating American
students, is an expanding arena in the education of specific students. As the number of
students in need of AE grows, so also must the number and types of schools into which
these students can enroll. Avenues must be invented and expounded upon which
adequately deal with and service the needs of students who are not being traditionally
served.
State policy and legislation have changed to address the growing needs of AE.
Katsiyannis and Williams (1998) reviewed state legislative and policy mandates and
found that as of 1996, twenty-two states had legislation addressing Alternative Education.
In 2003, this number had jumped to 48 out of 50 states as well as the District of
Columbia (Lehr, Lanners, & Lange, 2003). This change in the number of states
identifying AE as a separate educational entity demonstrates the large numbers of
students who are being removed from the traditional school setting and needing
alternative educational placement. With states and districts creating more appropriate
placements for these students, it is clear that AE is playing an increasing role in the
American educational system.
Region-Specific Discussion
California is the third largest state and it has five of the largest counties out of the
top twelve in the country. Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California and
the eleventh largest county in the nation. It is also home to the third largest enrollment of
AE students. Educational statistics in California are provided about schools and their
13

student enrollment through “Education Data” from the state’s Education Profile. In the
2006-07 school year, the “Alternative Education Enrollment” totaled 395,058 students
(Education Data Partnership, 2009). Alternative enrollment constitutes continuation,
community/experience-based, opportunity, magnet, pregnant and parenting, independent,
and “other” types of classes. Continuation classes are for students enrolled in either a
comprehensive or continuation high school that meets the requirements for continuation
education. Community/experience-based classes include enrollment in an instructional
program based in the community, including community service, internship, city (or
community) as school, schools without walls, and experience or field-based education.
Community/experience-based classes do not include community day schools.
Opportunity programs are designed to enhance different aspects of school
requirements such as student attendance or to offer other school related programs.
Magnet programs operate on the basis of a particular curriculum theme and/or
instructional mode. Students enrolled in the program or ‘school within a school’ may be
attracted from areas other than their school of residence. Pregnant/parenting programs are
for those students who are expecting or are already parenting teen mothers and fathers.
The program allows them to receive specialized services such as child care, counseling,
case management, and classes. Independent study is for students who have an
individualized instructional plan based on specific needs, and constitutes an agreement
with their district to complete specific assignments under the supervision of a teacher.
The designation “other” includes students in alternative programs or educational options
not covered above.
14

Within California, Riverside County has the 3
rd
largest Alternative Education
student enrollment with 32,077. Student demographics for Riverside County are 54.9%
Hispanic, 29.3% White, 7.4% African American, 2.5% Asian, 2% Filipino, and 0.7%
American Indian (See Figure 1). These numbers vary slightly in terms of enrollment in
the Riverside County Office of Education: 45.1% Hispanic, 38.2% White, 10.1% African
American, 1.3% Asian, 0.9% Filipino, and 0.9% American Indian (See Figure 2). Finally,
breaking down these numbers even further, the Riverside County Community School
enrollment shows: 56.5% Hispanic, 26% White, 14.5% African American, 0.5% Asian
and Filipino, and 1.7% American Indian (See Figure 3).
Comparing Riverside County percents (RC, Figure 2) with Community School
percents (CS, Figure 3), we see that Hispanics are slightly higher in CS than in RC
Whites are slightly lower in CS than in RC. African Americans are twice the proportion
in CS than they are represented in RC. Asians and Filipinos in CS are one-fifth and one-
fourth their demographic representation in RC respectively. Finally, American Indians in
CS are more than twice their demographic representation than in RC.

Figure 1. Student Ethnicity in Riverside County

Students by Ethnicity
Riverside County, 2006

American Indian
Asian
Pacific Islander
Filipino
Hispanic
African American
White
Multiple/No
Response
Total

Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
sifb0607 5/14/07)

Figure 1. Student Ethnicity in Riverside County
Students by Ethnicity
Riverside County, 2006-07
County State
Enrollme
nt
Percent of
Total
Percent of
Total
2,751 0.7%
10,496 2.5%
1,847 0.4%
8,350 2.0%
226,851 54.9%
30,633 7.4%
121,027 29.3%
11,104 2.7%
413,059 100%
Students by Ethnicity definitions
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,

15
State
Percent of
Total
0.8%
8.1%
0.6%
2.6%
48.1%
7.6%
29.4%
2.7%
100%
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,

Figure 2. Student Ethnicity in RCOE

Students by Ethnicity
Riverside County Office of Education, 2006

American Indian
Asian
Pacific Islander
Filipino
Hispanic
African American
White
Multiple/No
Response
Total
Note:
is 47.

Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office
(CBEDS, sifb0607 5/14/07)

Figure 2. Student Ethnicity in RCOE
Students by Ethnicity
Riverside County Office of Education, 2006-07
District County
Enrollme
nt
Percent
of Total
Percent
of Total
40 0.9%
60 1.3%
17 0.4%
39 0.9%
2,064 45.1% 54.9%
461 10.1%
1,746 38.2% 29.3%
145 3.2%
4,572 100% 100%
Riverside County Office of Education's Ethnic Diversity Index
is 47.
Students by Ethnicity definitions
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office

16
County
Percent
of Total
0.7%
2.5%
0.4%
2.0%
54.9%
7.4%
29.3%
2.7%
100%
Ethnic Diversity Index

Figure 3. Student Ethnicity in RCOE Community Schools

Students by Ethnicity
Riverside County Community School, 2006

American Indian
Asian
Pacific Islander
Filipino
Hispanic
African American
White
Multiple/No
Response
Total
Note:

Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
sifb0607 5/14/07)

Figure 3. Student Ethnicity in RCOE Community Schools
Students by Ethnicity
Riverside County Community School, 2006-07
School District
Enrollme
nt
Percent of
Total
Percent of
Total
14 1.7%
4 0.5%
2 0.2%
4 0.5%
463 56.5%
119 14.5%
213 26.0%
1 0.1%
820 100%
Riverside County Community's Ethnic Diversity Index is 44.
Students by Ethnicity definitions
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
17
District
Percent of

0.9%
1.3%
0.4%
0.9%
45.1%
10.1%
38.2%
3.2%
100%
is 44.
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
18

Figures 4-7 show RCOE enrollment over time. In 2000-01, the first year RCOE
had statistics, the enrollment was 3,650 (Figure 4 below). This number increased to 3,744
for the 2002-03 school year (Figure 5 below). Finally, in 2006-06, the enrollment was
4,572 (Figure 7 below). It is clear from these statistics, that the number of students in AE
programs, particularly in this large county, is increasing and a majority of these students
are either Hispanic or not proportionately represented according to their occurrence in the
population (e.g. African Americans and American Indians are in AE at levels 3 times
their societal proportions) (Denti & Guerin, 1999).

19

Figure 4. RCOE Enrollment 2000-2001
Districts by Type
Riverside County, 2000-01

Number
of Districts
1

Enroll
ment
Full-
Time Equivalent
Teachers
Elementary 4 12,283 600.7
High 1 6,061 252.6
Unified 18
297,48
9
13,782.5
County Office of
Education
1 3,650 292.0
Total 24
319,4
83
14,927.
8
The district and enrollment counts in this table do not include California Youth
Authority or State Special Schools.
The Pupil-Teacher Ratio is enrollment divided by the number of full-time
equivalent teachers. Because some teachers are not assigned to a classroom, the Pupil-
Teacher Ratio is usually smaller than the average class size.

Source: Educational Demographics Office, CBEDS (sifae00 6/19/01, assign00
6/7/01, pubschls 11/1/01)

20

Figure 5. RCOE Enrollment 2002-2003
Districts by Type
Riverside County, 2002-03

Number
of Districts
Enroll
ment
Full-Time
Equivalent Teachers
Elementary 4
13,54
7
639.0
High 1 6,976 300.0
Unified 18
324,9
10
14,785.1
County Office
of Education
1 3,744 300.6
State Special
Schools
1 430 85.4
Total 25
349,6
07
16,110.1
The Pupil-Teacher Ratio is enrollment divided by the number of full-time equivalent
teachers. Because some teachers are not assigned to a classroom, the Pupil-Teacher Ratio is
usually smaller than the average class size.

Source: Educational Demographics Office, CBEDS (sifae02 5/7/03, assign02 6/23/03,
pubschls 6/27/03)

21

Figure 6. RCOE Enrollment 2004-2005
Districts by Type
Riverside County, 2004-05

Number
of Districts
Enroll
ment
Full-Time
Equivalent Teachers
Elementary 4
15,46
0
726.0
High 1 8,040 332.0
Unified 18
353,6
15
15,811.0
County Office
of Education
1 3,408 294.0
State Special
Schools
1 441 91.0
Total 25
380,9
64
17,254.0
The Pupil-Teacher Ratio is enrollment divided by the number of full-time equivalent
teachers. Because some teachers are not assigned to a classroom, the Pupil-Teacher Ratio is
usually smaller than the average class size.

Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
sifade04 7/26/05, assign04 8/3/05, pubschls 4/29/05)

22

Figure 7. RCOE Enrollment 2006-2007
Districts by Type
Riverside County, 2006-07

Numbe
r of Districts Enrollment
Full-Time
Equivalent Teachers
Elemen
tary
4 18,783 878.5
High 1 9,189 385.8
Unified 18 380,130 16,958.1
County
Office of
Education
1 4,572 299.0
State
Special Schools
1 385 91.1
Total 25 413,059 18,612.5
The Pupil-Teacher Ratio is enrollment divided by the number of full-time equivalent
teachers. Because some teachers are not assigned to a classroom, the Pupil-Teacher Ratio is
usually smaller than the average class size.

Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
assign06 7/3/07, pubschls 9/1/07, sifb0607 5/14/07)

http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D
05%26reportNumber%3D16
23

Statement of the Problem
Given the consequences of not completing high school, finding ways to prevent
students from being diverted and keep them in the traditional setting through to
graduation could dramatically impact their future quality of life. A number of studies
have explored the characteristics of Alternative Education settings that are correlated
with academic improvement (Cox, 1999; Castleberry & Enger, 1998). Thus, we need to
talk to these students so improvements in practice and policy can be implemented to deter
the rising number of students who are labeled “at-risk” of dropping out of school.
Frymer and Gansneder (1989) have found that identifying which students are at-
risk and why they are at-risk is not a difficult process. Focusing on these students and
helping them achieve success could counter these personal, societal, and national
consequences. By addressing the educational needs of this specific subgroup within the
at-risk student population, we hopefully can increase the number of students who
graduate and become productive and functioning members of society, as opposed to those
who drop out and engage in nonproductive or illegal behaviors.
One of the methods progressive movements in school reform has utilized to
improve educational outcomes for students is to survey what students think and feel
about their educational experience (Sands, Guzman, Stephens, & Boggs, 2007).
Educational reform has continually occurred but with a dearth of input from those who
are the primary beneficiaries: the students (Cook-Sather, 2002: Fielding, 2001: Johnston
& Nichols, 1995). Giving students a chance to voice their concerns through feedback and
participation is a vital strategy in the ongoing redevelopment process of how best to
education at-risk students especially considering the greater numbers of students
24

identified as such (Britt, Thomas, Blackbourn, Blackbourn, Papason, Tyler, & Williams,
2005; Soo Hoo, 1993; Stevenson & Ellsworth, 1993).
According to the national nonprofit organization CommonAction, many states
have utilized the student voice strategy. Oregon State has developed a Youth Advisory
Team which meets with and informs the state superintendent about educational issues and
student views and concerns. San Francisco’s superintendent has a similar youth-led
organization called the Student Advisory Council. Other states include Boston with its
Student Advisory Council and Washington with its Student Engagement Plan. Also in
Washington, the city of Seattle has an alternative high school called the Nova Alternative
High School which was created in 1970 by students and teachers. This high school is a
thriving school of 280 students including at-risk students and those who were failing in
the traditional setting.
This strategy of utilizing student voice is particularly important because it
provides a window through which policy makers and practitioners may better understand
how a large segment of students are failing to experience the goal of the educational
system, which is to meet the needs of all students in preparing them for productive, law-
abiding futures within our society (Gatto, 2003). The at-risk student voice could assist in
the reform movement by advising key change agents of what is helpful and what is not
helpful for these students.
These students, the ones who are failing in school and eventually fail out of
school, could provide valuable insights as to how to change the system so that failure is
no longer an option. However, by not incorporating the voice of those who the system
shuns, the only threat to the system comes from outside researchers in the form of
25

critiques leveled against systemic, school-wide practices and policies in terms of
educating at-risk students (i.e. retention and tracking, Barr & Parrett, 2001, pp. 53-57).
The threat never comes from the primary participants in the form of a voice saying “We
are failing because…” Inclusion of the voice and perceptions of the primary stakeholders
in education, the students, could not only alter how the system treats them, but could also
increase the students’ vested interest and subsequently their positive participation in their
own success and that of the schools (Britt et al., 2005).
Within the AE setting, a great majority of what we know about its effectiveness
has been garnered from studies focusing on the program characteristics, not the actual
students themselves (Invernizzi, Rosemary, Juel, & Richards, 1997). Moreover, there are
different definitions of Alternative Education which make it difficult to be clear about
what types of students are being discussed or addressed at a particular time or in a
particular AE program. For instance, only recently have studies been done on a specific
form of AE program called disciplinary AE programs. These recent studies are an
outgrowth of several compounding factors. Greater numbers of students are being
removed from traditional school settings for disciplinary reasons, thus creating the term
Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs or DAEP’s. DAEP’s are a direct
consequence of the social policy enactments of the 1990’s, e.g. Congress’s Gun-Free
Schools Act of 1994; Texas’s Safe Schools Act of 1995; Oklahoma’s Alternative
Education Statute of 1997-98. DAEP settings have swelled across the nation to serve the
educational placement needs of this specific subgroup of at-risk students (Foley & Pang,
2006; Lange & Lehr, 2003; Denti & Guerin, 1999; Nichols & Utesch, 1998; De la Rosa,
1998). Knowing more about the educational perceptions of a subgroup of at-risk students
26

who have been removed from traditional schools and referred to AE for disciplinary
reasons could help teachers and administrators in the traditional setting provide better
educational services and interventions to other at-risk students before they are removed or
pushed out.
Purpose of the Study
This study seeks to explore the perspective of at-risk students within the AE
setting –a setting that is playing an increasing role in the American educational system-
regarding the educational or school cultural characteristics that they believe help them
perform better academically. More specifically, this study seeks to gain insight into their
experiences in the AE setting versus the traditional setting based on ethnicity and gender
for the purposes of advancing the literature: (a) beyond simply stating sample
demographics to utilizing them as a focus of inquiry, given that they learn differently
(Raywid, 1994) and interventions need to clientele-specific (Barr & Parrett, 2003; Barr &
Parrett, 1997); and (b) by exploring to a greater depth why students are more successful
in AE (Cox, 1999).
Different students may stress specific characteristics of the educational
environment or setting that have helped them become more successful in AE. Unlike the
traditional school environment, AE has specific characteristics that promote academic
success for at-risk students such as student-centered, self-contained, and self-paced
classrooms (Young, 1990). By identifying what a specific subgroup within the at-risk
student category has to say about the type of educational environment and culture that
works best for them, we can then recommend similar services for this population prior to
their being removed from the traditional school setting.
27

Prior research identified different populations within the AE setting, those with
disabilities (Lehr, Moreau, Lange, & Lanners, 2004), those receiving Special Education
(Nelson, Rutherford, & Wolford, 1987), and those seeking voluntary or involuntary
placement (TEA, 2007). However, the AE literature has not been explored from a student
perspective using an ethnic or gender comparative analysis. This could possibly be
because the field of Alternative Education has only recently gained greater attention as a
consequence of greater numbers of students being placed in these settings. Greater
numbers of students have been placed in these settings within the last 15 years as a
consequence of changes in federal and state laws which have regulated specific
behavioral violations as mandatory expulsions from traditional schools. Thus the AE
literature can be viewed as an open arena for repetition of many of the studies that have
already been completed in the traditional school setting. Moreover, if we know what
works for these students, from their perspective, we could make recommendations about
better ways to structure the traditional school setting and perhaps prevent the need to
remove them in the first place. The current study fills this gap in the literature, as well as
builds on the recommendation (Cox, 1999) that future studies should explore why
students are more successful in AE compared to traditional schools. Further, this study
identifies the AE student population as at-risk students who have been removed from the
traditional school setting due to disciplinary reasons.
Theoretical Framework
A survey of the ethnically diverse at-risk students who have been forced out of the
traditional school and are now in the AE setting will shed light on the problem of why
schools are failing to graduate more than half their Black and Latino students and what
28

can be done to address this concern. Statistics not only show wide differences in
graduation rates based on ethnicity but they also show wide ranges in suspension rates,
expulsion rates, Special Education placements, and harsher punishments for similar
infractions, all based on ethnicity and gender (Colorado Children’s Campaign, 2007;
Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins, & Chung, 2005).
Social Network Theory suggests that these disparities may be due in part to
differential access to the social networks that align with the traditional school culture
(Lin, 2001; Gibson, Gandara, & Koyama, 2004). Therefore, we expect a variance in
response based on ethnicity as to what aspects of a school culture are beneficial to
students. The research has correctly identified the imperative nature of addressing the
needs of the growing population of students removed from the traditional school setting.
However, in order to address their needs, we must first correctly identify what the
different needs are for different students. The possibility exists that this cannot be
accomplished by treating all at-risk students in Alternative Education as a homogeneous
group. By asking a diverse student population to voice their opinion about what works in
the AE setting, it will be possible to identify what specifically can be done for
disenfranchised and alienated but easily identifiable at-risk students within the traditional
setting.
The theoretical framework for this study is Social Network Theory (Gibson,
Gandara, & Koyama, 2004). The at-risk students who have been removed from
traditional schools have not developed strong social networks in these settings (McCall,
2003). Once they arrive in the AE setting, they have a greater chance to develop a social
tie or bond with the adults in this setting due to the setting characteristics (Barr & Parrett,
29

1997). “Exposure to social networks can provide children with the normative framework
through which the values of academic achievement and a passion for learning are
reinforced” (Koliba, 2003, p. 92). Social Network Theory appears to be an appropriate
theoretical framework for this study due to the key characteristic benefit of AE settings
which is promoting greater chances for students to feel a sense of community support
(Farris-Berg & Schroeder, 2003, p. 6). This is the key element, the “most noticeable
difference” (p. 6) that allows students to be successful in AE programs. Focusing on how
different ethnic groups utilize the “community” as a resource for academic achievement
will help us explore the combination of student ethnicity and perception in the AE
setting.
Students of different ethnicities and gender understand the concept of
“community” differently (Ogbu, 1983). Teachers can be included in the sense of
community if these teachers show support and care for their students. Teacher support
and concern would make some students want to perform better. It would give them the
encouragement and support they seek. Other students who have a different understanding
of community and support might not value a student-teacher relationship in the same
manner and thus not receive the benefit from this particular enhanced quality of the AE
setting. Furthermore, some students might benefit from different aspects of the AE setting
that better suits them, like the less rigid classroom structure or the noncompetitive
curriculum, which are factors of this institution (Elliot, 2007). The factors that motivate
students to perform better in the AE setting might be centered in the different value
systems of these students which in turn might be housed in their different ethnic or
cultural backgrounds. Students demonstrate academic improvement in the AE setting
30

(Hosley, 2003). However, various characteristics of the AE environment might prompt
different students to exhibit these improvements. Enhanced networks could be the source
of improvement for specific at-risk students.
Stanton-Salazar’s (2001) work with Social Network Theory and Mexican
American students found that they were at a disadvantage in traditional schools with
respect to developing social networks. The presenting social networks of these students
and other minorities may also be in conflict with those of traditional school settings.
Success in the traditional schools for children of color, oftentimes dictates a separation
from these students’ culture and norms and adoption and adaptation to the mainstream
cultural norms (Valenzuela, 1999).
This study seeks to explore the possibility that certain at-risk students within the
AE setting will identify the connection between their academic achievement and factors
of increased social networks as the reason why they think the AE setting is better for
them than the traditional school setting. This study will isolate specific characteristics of
the AE setting, specifically supportive relationships, organizational environment, and
self-efficacy to see if there are differences associated with ethnic background in terms of
which AE characteristic is most beneficial for promoting their academic achievement.
The AE literature has identified the most important aspect of the AE climate as its
sense of community (Aronson, 1995). Social Network Theory and research have found
that social networks played a major role in student academic achievement and success.
With this understanding, it will be explored whether at-risk AE students will identify
supportive relationships as the main AE characteristic that they have experienced most
31

often and which promotes their academic achievement as opposed to the other AE
characteristics indicating organizational environment or self-efficacy.
Given the nature of the dropout rates presented earlier, it is clear that the current
systemic strategies and methods utilized by traditional schools are inadequate. The
literature on at-risk students provides research-based methods and strategies that promote
academic success for students at-risk of failure (Denti & Guerin, 1999). Isolated AE
programs with specific characteristics that address multiple needs of at-risk students have
proven effective (De la Rosa, 1998; Sekayi, 2001; McCall, 2003). The literature on AE
interventions that is academically based, as opposed to socially or psychologically based,
will be analyzed in depth in chapter two.
Research Question
Is there a difference in perception by gender or ethnicity, regarding environmental or
school characteristics within the Alternative Education setting?

Gender and ethnic differences are expected in student responses. It is expected
that Black and Hispanic students will rate the AE characteristic supportive relationships
and organizational environment higher than White students, while rating self-efficacy as
lower than Whites. Female students are expected to rate self-efficacy as higher than
boys, but supportive relationships and organizational environments as lower than boys.
Significance of the Problem
Many of the reforms currently utilized in the traditional school setting were first
invented or adopted from the Alternative Education School setting (Barr & Parrett, 1995).
In fact, “the most effective approach to school restructuring that has ever been developed
32

is alternative public schools” (Barr & Parrett, 1995, p 198). This study seeks to explore a
unique AE student perspective regarding which AE school climate characteristics they
perceive and experience as more beneficial academically. The results of this exploration
can benefit students in the traditional school setting similar to previously adopted results
from the AE setting. Students who are at-risk of being pushed out or dropping out might
be diverted from that outcome by creating interventions based on the current study’s
findings, which increase students’ vested interest and decrease disciplinary issues.
Moreover, these results can greatly inform key change agents, such as teachers
and principals, in the education of all students, but particularly Black and Latino students
who are forced out of schools at a greater proportional rate than white students. More
specifically, teachers and administrators will now be able to address the unique academic
experiences of students who are displaying severe behavioral or disciplinary issues prior
to the point where those issues force the student out of the school. Change agents can
further use the at-risk student perspective about what makes them academically
successful to provide other subgroups of at-risk students similar supports or classroom
modifications.
This study seeks to explore in greater depth and from the students’ perspectives
the specific characteristics that are identified in the literature on AE settings as being
most beneficial to their academic success. The results from this study will help policy and
practice correct racial disparities and promote success for all students. More specifically,
by investigating the experiences and perspectives of ethnically diverse at-risk students in
the DAEP setting, we can focus, highlight, and replicate specific program characteristics
that the students said were beneficial to them.
33

Methodology
This study utilized a non-experimental, correlation design. The variables were:
ethnicity (3 levels: Black, Latino/Hispanic, and White); gender; and student perspective
regarding their experience of/with school environment/cultural characteristics (3 levels:
classroom experience = organizational environment, relationships in a supportive
environment = teacher support, and self-paced/individualized curriculum = self-efficacy).
This cross-sectional design sought to quantify the strength of the relationship between the
variables without implying cause and effect.
This design was appropriate to the goals of the study which were to gain the
ethnically diverse at-risk student perspective regarding what characteristics of the AE
setting prove most academically beneficial to them.
Assumptions
For purposes of this study, it was assumed that subjects responded honestly to the
questionnaire.
Limitations
1. This study is limited to subjects who agreed to participate.
2. This study is limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time
available to conduct the study.
3. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the instruments used.
Delimitations
This study confined itself to surveying Alternative Education students within the
Riverside County Office of Education. This study focused on servicing of needs,
34

curriculum type, classroom environment, and classroom containment. Only students
agreeing to participate were included in the study.
Definition of Terms
Alternative Education encompasses any type of academic setting outside the
mainstream private or public school setting (Cox, 1999). For the purposes of this paper,
AE refers to the setting designed to academically serve students who have been removed
from the traditional public school setting. In this paper, the focus is on the Riverside
County Office of Education Alternative Education Program, the 3
rd
largest program in the
state of California.
Rozycki (2004) defined “at-risk students” as those who are in danger of not
graduating from high school. For the purposes of this study, “at-risk student” will be
further defined as a student removed from the traditional school setting due to severe
behavioral or disciplinary issues and placed in the AE setting, specifically the AE
Program within the RCOE.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study has presented the introduction, the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the question to be
answered, the significance of the study, a brief description of the methodology, the
assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature. It addresses the following topics:
Alternative Education, Social Network Theory, ethnicity and gender studies, and student
voice.
35

Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the research
design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or
development, together with information on validity and reliability. The sections
concludes with a rationale, including strengths and limitations of the design elements.
The chapter goes on to describe the procedures for data collection and the plan for data
analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the
results, culminating in conclusions and recommendations.
36

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter will provide a brief history of the Alternative Education movement
and then discuss specific characteristics of the AE setting that are identified in the
literature as most beneficial for at-risk students in these settings. These characteristics
will then be organized into themes: social connections, individuality or self-efficacy, and
organizational/structural environment. Next is a review of the literature on student voice
and school experience. The study’s theoretical framework will then be discussed in detail.
Following this will be a presentation of the purpose of this study and an analysis of what
is expected based on ethnicity and gender research. Finally, the conclusion and
implications are set out.
Literature Review
A Brief History of Alternative Education
This section provides a background for understanding the changes that have been
made in the AE setting. Historically, AE has been a student-characteristic-created
environment, meaning the characteristics of AE are manipulated to address the
educational needs of the students being served. AE has gone through many reforms and
schools of thought in this country. In the 1960’s, alternative schools began as private
alternatives to public education (Quinn, Poirier, Faller, Gable, & Tonelson, 2006). At this
time, alternative schools were an option for parents who felt their children were not being
serviced by traditional school methods. The focus was to find new ways for certain
students to be successful via different pedagogies, strategies, or methods (Hasazi, Proulx,
Hess, MacKimon, Morgan, Needham, & O’Regan, 2001).
37

Montessori and Waldorf schools are examples of the early private “alternative
schools” (Miller, 1989). Montessori education uses specially-designed materials to
promote a hands-on, explorative, child-centered style of learning (Lillard & Else-Quest,
2006). Classrooms provide open environments which allow students the choice to move
freely from one learning area to another. Montessori education is not characterized by
test-based instruction or a curriculum powered by grades and standardized tests. These
characteristics provide an alternative educational environment that promoted greater
learning in areas of social skills, sense of fairness and justice, as well as a greater overall
sense of emotional development (Bagby, 2007).
Waldorf schools also provide an alternative to the standards-based education
found in public school (Beem, 2009). It also boasts of a child-centered environment in
which self-fulfillment, happiness, and independent thinking are prized and promoted
more than grades and test scores. Social development is also an important feature in
Waldorf schools as children learn how to adapt to settings in a more positive and peaceful
manner.
Also developed at this time were Freedom Schools. The “free school” movement
followed during the 1970’s providing for greater freedom from standardized one-size-
fits-all public school curricula. Free schools offered a more child-centered and
individualized school environment (Aron, 2003). The freedom-based movement also
fostered in students a personal responsibility, initiative, and ability to communicate with
people (Gray & Chanoff, 1986).
Many of these alternatives existed outside the public school system, many times
in opposition to it. Common features of these early forms of alternative education
38

include the ability of students to choose what they wanted to learn, non-standards-based
education and assessment, and a child-centered approach.
Today’s climate of AE has been modified to address the unique needs of at-risk
students, those in danger of not graduating from traditional high schools as a consequence
of being forced out via expulsion or suspension, or diverted out via dropping out. Studies
presented in the next section will discuss the characteristics of contemporary AE settings
which make them successful for at-risk students.
Characteristics of Alternative Education Programs
Although “alternative education” has been defined in a variety of ways, there are
specific characteristics found commonly throughout the literature. For example, Barr and
Parrett (2001), in their textbook Hope Fulfilled for At-Risk and Violent Youth detail
essential components of effective programs: small, supportive learning environments
with customized, comprehensive, and challenging curricula; caring and demanding
teachers who provide individualized instruction; increased one-on-one interaction;
continuing assessment; and successful transitions.
Foley and Pang (2006) in their study examining AE program structures, facilities,
student populations, and services, also identify similar characteristics and emphasize the
need to meet students’ unique academic and social-emotional needs via individualized
instruction as well as to strengthen relationships between teachers and students. Finally,
Hasazi, Proulx, Hess, MacKimon, Morgan, Needham, and O’Regan (2001), in their
research report on alternative schools in Vermont, state that regardless of the setting, the
AE research identifies similar program elements: (a) low student to teacher ratios; (b)
curricular components that incorporate student choice, essential skills competency, social
39

skills development, and experiential learning; (c) supplemental counseling and
interagency collaboration; (d) educators trained to work with diverse learners; (e) family
and community involvement; and (f) student goal setting. The characteristics of the AE
setting center on several themes which will now be discussed in detail.
Themes
The characteristics of the AE setting which prove most beneficial for student
academic achievement can be grouped into three themes: social connections or
supportive relationships, individuality or self-efficacy, and organizational/structural
environment. Organizational/ structural environment refers to the overall school and
classroom characteristics of the AE setting. Individuality/ self-efficacy refers to the
individualized pace and ability of students to progress through their academic work at
their own goal level. Social connections/ supportive relationships deal with the
relationships based on student-teacher interactions or student-adult interactions. These
three themes form the basis of the most important factors which promote academic
success for at-risk students in the AE setting.
Social connections/ Supportive Relationships
The first characteristic, relationships, has been identified as a key component for
student success (Foley & Pang, 2006; Kochhar-Bryant & Lacey, 2005; Crosnoe, Johnson,
& Elder, 2004). Teachers, by the way they relate to the classroom in general and students
individually, can create the platform for the student-teacher relationship. For instance, if a
teacher is friendly and approachable, then students feel welcome and comfortable which
in turn may prompt them to want to perform well in class. Alternative youth have diverse
sets of academic and social-emotional characteristics which require highly skilled and
40

effective educators (Foley & Pang, 2006, Kochhar-Bryant and Lacey, 2005). Therefore,
developing nurturing relationships and maintaining them within the AE setting - which is
based on the teacher’s ability to positively interact with students- would seem to be an
important component for student success.
From their questionnaire study of 50 AE program directors and principals, Foley
and Pang (2006) recommend that teachers in AE settings have increased Special
Education knowledge, training, and experience because they found in their study that
teachers in AE settings who had a Special Education background had greater positive
attitudes toward their students. This was based on their study of the governance, funding,
and physical facilities of AE programs followed by their analysis of the students
attending the programs in the sample.
Increasing the quality of interaction between students and teachers promotes
better school performance (Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004). These authors examined
student outcomes and the interpersonal processes between students and teachers as a
function of school size. Using multilevel modeling on a sample size of about 15,000, the
study found that student attachment to school and teachers decreased as the size of the
school increased. They also found that student attachment to school and teachers
decreased equally across various ethnic groups and genders with schools having
populations nearing 2,000.
Individuality /Self-efficacy
Cox (1999) studied the effect of alternative schools on student attitudes toward
school, self-esteem, delinquency, grade point average, standardized test scores, and
attendance. The study was designed to address the needs of a specific subgroup of at-risk
41

student, suggesting that a program’s merit, in terms of effectiveness, is contingent upon
the correct match of the specific student needs and the AE program components. The
sample included students with behavioral or academic problems, but did not include
students with serious behavioral problems, defined as “numerous fights or assaults on
school staff” (p. 327). This designation aligns with the second classification of Raywid’s
(1994) three-tier AE classification system (refer to discussion from Ch. 1). Forty-one
students were in the experimental group, forty-two in the control, and all of whom were
middle school aged (93% 7
th
graders), but no mention was given regarding the ethnic
background of the students.
The study utilized a 45-item, closed-ended questionnaire to measure attitude, self-
esteem, and delinquency, and school records to measure grade point average, test scores,
and attendance. Cox assessed differences between a randomly selected control group
which stayed in regular, traditional school and an experimental group which underwent a
four-month-long AE program. The study’s 2x3 design measured group differences pre-
treatment, post-treatment, and one year post-treatment. Differences were observed
between the groups in terms of attitude toward school, self-esteem, and school
performance but not on delinquency. Findings suggest that when specific students are
matched to an AE program that addresses the needs of the targeted population and when
a true experimental design is conducted, greater overall effects will be observed as a
consequence of attending the alternative setting. In this case, students were recommended
for the study if they were experiencing behavioral or academic problems.
What is not answered in Cox’s study is whether there were differences in attitude,
self-esteem, attendance, GPA, delinquency, and test scores based on ethnicity or gender.
42

The only passing reference was that the study was conducted in a Midwestern city. The
study does not delineate whether its findings were consistent across all groups in the
sample because the author never made a point to disaggregate the data. Just as the study
identified success as a consequence of attending an AE program when that program is
matched to the needs of the clientele, in this case behavioral vs. academic problems, the
same could be true for identifying success based on how a program is adapted toward the
gender or ethnicity needs of the student clientele.
Organizational/Structural Environment
Hasazi et al., (2001) completed a research report compiling policy issues of
alternative schools throughout Vermont, in addition to an inquiry of alternative program
supervisory unions. Organizational characteristics such as learning opportunities for
students, cost factors, organizational structures, and relationship to state quality standards
were analyzed. Telephone interviews were conducted with alternative program directors.
Findings showed a distinction of three organizational types of alternative programs: (a)
programs designed for all students within the traditional school setting; (b) programs
designed for at-risk students being conducted at separate facilities; and (c) program
options for special education students or those with social/emotional needs. This
coincides with Raywid’s (1994) classification system of AE programs. Hasazi et al.,
(2001) provide an organizational foundation for understanding the alternative programs
in the state of Vermont.
Denti and Guerin (1999) studied nontraditional schools to find characteristics of
successful programs. Specific strategies were common in the AE programs that adapted
to the unique needs of the at-risk youth being served. A caring adult, use of portfolios,
43

alternative assessments, and individualized education plans (IEP’s) were key components
of successful programs. Another important finding was the need for teachers to
demonstrate specific competencies in order to effectively deal with the problems
presented by these students in these restrictive settings. Denti and Guerin (1999) also
recommended that AE teachers be trained in Special Education in addition to reading
remediation, behavior management, and counseling skills. These teacher competencies
increase the focus on positive student-teacher relationship and provide a mechanism for
understanding how the supportive environment is created and maintained in the AE
setting.
Summary of AE Characteristics
The predominant characteristics of the AE setting which make it ideal for
promoting academic achievement for at-risk students center around a supportive
environment, customized individualized curricula, and the positive classroom and school
experiences. AE studies (Barr & Parrett, 2001; Foley & Pang, 2006; Hasazi et al., 2001)
identify the low student-teacher ratio in these settings to highlight the greater opportunity
for students and teachers to bond or just have greater one-to-one interactions. This is the
foundation for a supportive environment. Also emphasized, is the characteristic of
individualized curricula. The students are able to work on their assignments at their own
pace and ability levels without the pressure of being compared to the entire class. Finally,
the characteristic of classroom or school-related experience is identified as an important
component of the AE setting (Kochhar-Bryant & Lacey, 2005). In the next section, this
characteristic of the AE setting will be discussed by analyzing the construct of student
voice.
44

Student Voice and School Experience
Despite being primary stakeholders in education, the student voice is painfully
missing from the literature as well as from practice (Sands et al., 2007). Researchers and
practitioners by and large have not used the strategy of “student voice” to address the
issue of how best to help at-risk students perform better academically. This section will
discuss the at-risk and alternative student perspective literature. To continue along the
lines of AE themes, the literature is also organized via the AE characteristics: social
connections/supportive relationships, self-efficacy, and organizational environment.
Social Connections/Supportive Relationships
In a study entitled “Hear My Voice”, De la Ossa (2005) investigated school
change from the alternative high school student perspective. The study included 78
students from eight alternative high schools in the state of Washington. The purpose of
the study was to utilize the student voice as a strategy for school reform. The students in
De la Ossa’s study, although in a alternative education setting, were in a Type I (Raywid,
1994) category school, meaning they chose to attend the school, and they were not
classified by subgroups (e.g. race, age, grade). De la Ossa used a participant-
observational approach in the form of focus groups to collect data. The author validated
the argument that students are capable of providing insight into policy structures and
changes in the public school system. One of the themes De la Ossa found was a function
between perception and subsequent action “how one views the world ultimately affects
one’s actions” (p. 36).
De la Ossa utilized focus groups, asking them to respond to questions about: the
effect of attending an alternative school in terms of their educational experience; the
45

effect of being in a noncompetitive learning environment; the students’ feelings regarding
their education; the students’ thoughts regarding teacher and student goals; the
advantages of being in an alternative high school; their inclusion and acceptance in
school; and ways to improve high schools. Thematic findings included: students feeling
able to communicate better with friends and teachers; students commenting that they
were able to talk with teachers one on one for help and that knowing the teacher helped
them work harder; and students feeling greater personal relationships with teachers
because of smaller class sizes. One student commented about the teacher-student
relationship: “Like with that one cool teacher we all had, you are not sure what it is but
they were able to get everyone’s attention, and everyone listened to them. And if we
could capture that and put it into a bottle and sell it for $9.95. If we could do that there
would be no problem” (De la Ossa, 2005, p. 35).
This finding served as the foundation for why it is important to solicit and
understand the student perspective in the current study. Students isolated and revealed the
value that positive interactions --specifically increased comfort levels and communication
with teachers-- have on their level of motivation and engagement with their school work.
This is how and why research investigating the at-risk student view on the subject of
school and academic achievement, student voice --data in the form of student surveys,
questionnaire, focus groups, and etc-- can inform practice and research. Knowing how
these students see the world of “school” provides a greater insight into what factors can
help them succeed. The student voice method of gathering data differs from other
methods because it focuses directly on the factors that the students identify as helping
them succeed. It goes beyond test scores or grades which are simply reflections of the
46

student after a period of time; whereas student voice data is hearing information and
opinion directly from students themselves. This method allows for intervention because a
focus has been identified which can promote success. Traditional measures of gathering
data is like a diagnosis of an infection as opposed to student voice data being a
prescription for treatment.
Sekayi (2001) conducted a case study of a remedial AE program for ninth and
tenth graders. Six students were interviewed and forty-five were involved in a focus
group to provide a qualitative evaluation of the first year of this AE program. The
majority of the students were African American boys. It is not clear the level of
effectiveness of the program or if that was the intent of the study. The focus of the study
was the idea of student resistance and its source. It was found that lack of effective
teacher-student communication and the lack of respect for teachers and students was the
manifestation of this resistance. Students did not want to do “baby work,” were resentful
of being placed in the setting (although the author is clear in specifying early on that
students are “invited” to attend and the decision resides with the families), and
complained of teacher attitudes (5 teachers), school size (capacity of 75 students), and
length of classes.
Sekayi (2001) analyzed the school dynamics of power and authority from a
cultural perspective, finding that student and teacher beliefs were in conflict and a source
of student resistance. Teachers held middle class cultural values in terms of power and
pedagogy, meaning they had authority because of their superior role, i.e. they should be
respected because they were the teachers. The students’ beliefs reflected a value system
by which respect is given if earned regardless of one’s position.
47

Bowen, Rose, Powers, & Glennie (2008) found that school satisfaction had a
strong effect on students’ level of school engagement and that teacher support had a
positive influence on students’ perceived social support and trouble avoidance. These
authors surveyed 2,845 students in middle school in fall 2004 and again in fall 2005 using
the School Success Profile (SSP). Using hierarchical linear modeling the data showed
changes in perception over time regarding students’ views toward social environment and
adaptation outcome measures. School success was conceptualized “as eight aspects of
individual adaptation nested in two categories: (a) personal beliefs and well-being (i.e.
social support, physical health, happiness, personal adjustment, and self-esteem), and (b)
school attitudes and behavior (i.e. school engagement, trouble avoidance, and academic
performance).” (p. 7-8). The authors found that students who are satisfied with various
aspects of school, e.g. their teachers, their schoolwork, and relationships with other
students, have positive attitudes toward school and perform well while at school in terms
of behavior, i.e. not getting into trouble, and academics, i.e. tests and overall grades. This
demonstrates the importance of promoting a positive environment for students in all
settings but particularly the AE setting because these students have already had negative
experiences with school in general and usually have very low attitudes toward school,
which has been reflected by low grades and getting into trouble.
Self- Efficacy
Castleberry and Enger (1998) completed a study in Arkansas in which they
interviewed 173 Alternative Learning Environment (ALE) students to explore student
perceptions of success in an ALE. Their demographics were 67% white and 27% Black.
Forty-two percent of the student sample was placed in the ALE due to disciplinary
48

reasons. Students were in grades 10-12 and they were interviewed “using seven open-
ended items and a set of items that provided contrasts” (p. 106). The study found that
students were unanimous in citing their lack of success in the traditional schools,
attributable mostly to personal factors (self-blame). Students also acknowledged several
school factors that contributed to their lack of success: pace of instruction, decreased
teacher-to-student ratio, 1-on-1 time, and class size.
Nichols & Utesch (1998) studied the effect that an alternative education program
had on the self-esteem, motivation, goal orientation, and efficacy of at-risk students.
Sixty-five (49 boys, 16 girls), in grades 6-11, were referred to the alternative education
program because they were unable to function in the traditional setting. In addition to
academic classes, students received counseling and skills training during the 12-week
program and were pre and post-queried with a 66-item Likert-scaled questionnaire.
Results showed that students who completed the AE program had high motivation, self-
esteem and persistence.
Findings also showed that, compared to students who completed the program,
students who dropped out had higher scores on two constructs: higher extrinsic
motivation and peer self-esteem. This is significant for several reasons. First, it provides a
sharper focus on the mechanism behind the reason why students drop out. The authors
suggest that dropouts may be more motivated by immediate extrinsic rewards such as
those derived from part time jobs, relationships, or family involvement, which in turn
may trump the long-term goal of graduating from high school. Second, the dropouts were
found to have higher peer self-esteem which could indicate a greater alliance with or
49

influence by a non-school focused social network than by a school-focused social
network.
The findings from this study highlight the effectiveness of an AE program, but
more importantly provide insight into a different strategy for helping those at greater risk
of dropping out of school. First, we know that in order for an AE program to be
successful, it is necessary to have some widely agreed upon program characteristics. We
also know that there is a classification of AE program type (I, II, III) which can help
researchers and practitioners more quickly match the needs of identified at-risk students
with the AE setting characteristics. The research of Nichols & Utesch (1998) has now
provided us with a method of potentially identifying students (those with high extrinsic
motivation and peer self-esteem) who may be at an even greater risk of dropping out of
school. It may now be possible to tap into a student’s high extrinsic motivation and peer
self-esteem, in an effort to use those constructs to steer these students toward program
completion.
Organizational Environment
De la Rosa (1998) surveyed fifty dropouts who returned to enroll in an AE
program. Most of the students (96%) indicated that they valued education as being very
important for their futures. Ten percent indicated that the reason they returned was family
members pressuring them to go back to school. However, the primary social network was
school-focused in only 5 of these cases. Thus, for the remaining students, the primary
social network was not strong enough to influence them to return to school in large
numbers. Other social networks, like for instance the peer network which
developmentally has greater influence than the family network, may have impacted
50

students’ decisions regarding school. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the students
dropped out initially, because completing high school was never a priority within their
social networks, which adheres to Kohlberg’s third stage of morality development in
which children live up to the expectations of the family and community (Crain, 1985).
For the students who returned to school, maybe they have progressed past stage three and
are now focused on performing their own duties which is an aspect of Kohlberg’s fourth
stage (Crain, 1985).
Brit, Thomas, Blackbourn, Blackbourn, Papason, Tyler, & Williams (2005)
sought to understand the daily lives of at-risk students and the process leading “to a state
of being at risk for dropping out of school” (p.2). Using a sample of 15 elementary school
students, the researchers investigated the relationship between what was going on in the
students’ lives and how school activities interfered with the conditions the students faced.
After listening to the students, the researchers recommended action steps for schools
which would address voiced student concerns. Recommendations included schools
bringing in resources relating to parent skills and home support and guidance, increasing
student involvement to combat boredom and disaffiliation, drugs, pregnancy, and careers.
Brit et al., (2005) were on the right track by suggesting that schools create
workshops or activities that would increase student-adult interaction. This strategy
promotes greater student bonding with the school and staff members. What is new to the
discussion of AE programs is the documentation of the student voice saying that the
reason they rebelled was that they felt as if no one listened to them and thus they had no
say in how rules were created and enforced, nor in how, if or when social activities were
planned. What was unclear in the Brit et al., (2005) study was whether the participants in
51

their study were still in the traditional setting or had been placed in an AE setting. Their
study left it up to the reader to infer whether the students were 15 sixth graders or 15 fifth
graders or some combination of both. Given that the participants voiced concerns
regarding drugs, pregnancy, and lack of parental support in the home, it is believed that
these students were late elementary school students. Brit et al., (2005) demonstrate the
importance of clarity in describing the study sample, which will enhance understanding
as well as allow for matched analysis with prior or future studies.
Quinn, Poirier, Faller, Gable, & Tonelson (2006) explored the similarities and
differences in AE programs using a non-experimental research design. The authors
studied a variety of AE programs including: one county Department of Education
Division of Alternative Education program with 37 community day schools spread across
five regions (= Program A); a single day treatment private school operated by a university
(=Program B); a mental health agency AE program, and a Special Education program
(=Program C). The study selected one school from each of the five regions of Program A
to ensure true representation of the county’s system. Fifty-three students were surveyed
from Program A, forty-five from Program B, and forty-nine from Program C, totaling
147 student participants. Student demographics were as follows: 34% White, 24%
African American, and 23% Hispanic. Also provided were teacher demographics: 76%
White, 15% African American, and 6% Other; and 71 females and 64 males.
The measurement was the Effective School Battery (ESB; Gottfredson, 1986),
which is a 118 closed-ended multiple choice and true false measure. The measure has 6
scales for psychosocial climate and 12 scales for student characteristics. Findings showed
that AE programs differed on only two climate measures (clarity of rules and safety) and
52

five of the student characteristics (avoidance of punishment, involvement, parental
education, positive self-concept, and school rewards). The other climate measures were
fairness of rules, planning and action, respect for students, and student influence. The
remaining student characteristics included: attachment to school, belief in rules,
educational expectation, interpersonal competency, positive peer associations, school
effort, and social integration. The study concluded that certain characteristics of AE
programs are essential to the effective functioning of a program while other
characteristics are not. More specifically, the study found that these AE programs “create
personalized environments in which students feel respected and fairly treated and where
expectations for social, interpersonal, and academic success is supported” (Quinn,
Poirier, Faller, Gable, & Tonelson, 2006, p.15). With the importance of students’ social
networks, particularly the importance of student-teacher relationships within the AE
setting, a discussion now follows on Social Network Theory which will be the grounding
theoretical framework for this study.
Social Network Theory
The predominant theme related to the most successful characteristics of AE
programs is social networks. Therefore, Social Network Theory will be the guiding
theoretical framework for the current study. Social Network Theory is the study of a
person’s relationship structures and how these structures affect his or her beliefs and
behaviors (Network Theory and Analysis, 2007). The focus is on the relationship among
or between an individual and the people around him or her. Relationships can either
facilitate or restrict opportunities via access to support, friends, resources, and
information (Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). In terms of social support, Stanton-
53

Salazar (2001) describes the concept of social networks as social webs, social support
systems, social freeways, pipelines, and even social prisons. Each metaphor is explained
in the paragraph below.
Social webs, according to Stanton-Salazar’s (2001) conception, connect people to
each other, building into consecutive rings that construct our communities and societies.
Social support systems help us navigate economic and health pathways. Social freeways
allow for easy movement about the complex mainstream landscape (Stanton-Salazar,
2001). Pipelines are the avenues through which resources, privileges, and opportunities
flow to certain groups and individuals. Finally, the idea of social prisons is that our
social networks can lock us into certain groups.
Social Network Theory and Education
Stanton-Salazar (2001) examined the dynamics of help-seeking and social-capital
formation among Mexican-American adolescents. He sought to more fully understand the
routine trials and developmental challenges faced by low-income urban Latino youth. In
terms of education, he found that these adolescents did not receive the type of parental
support that translated into tangible strategies that would prompt academic success.
Parents did not check on students regarding their schoolwork or go meet with teachers.
Instead, according to Stanton-Salazar, parents held an expectation that their children
would understand the value of behaving, doing well, and being responsible for
themselves in school. In effect, they were expected to manage their own academic affairs
in a manner deemed appropriate and responsible according to the values they were taught
as children.
54

According to that study, Stanton-Salazar (2001) concluded that students with
greater or stronger social networks have access to greater opportunities within the
educational system because people within these social networks act as key resource
agents. Agents like teachers and guidance counselors play a determining role in the
maintenance or disturbance of societal inequality because of their ability to help facilitate
for and maneuver students toward greater levels of achievement. Teachers act as “co-
parents, informal mentors, child advocates, and informal psychologists” (Stanton-Salazar,
2001, p. 162). Given that most teachers have multiple classes with more than twenty
students per class, teachers may pick and choose the students for whom they will serve as
facilitators. The students of choice have therefore been granted, by a key school agent,
the benefit and privilege of a greater, stronger social tie. This stronger social tie carries
with it a “more potential transformative power” (p. 89) and manifests as a more “caring
and nurturing relationship” (p. 91) between those students and the “agent” teachers. As
Stanton-Salazar(2001) puts it “Of particular theoretical importance, then, is how
supportive ties to school personnel potentially embody differential value and power,
depending on the social background of the student” (p. 163). In terms of the current
study’s focus, students will be asked to rate their experience with and relevance of the
relationship they have with their AE teacher and the connection this may or may not have
with their academic achievement. Results may demonstrate differences in student
perception based on ethnicity.
Tennent, Farrell, & Taylor (2008) studied perceptions of 388 school children aged
4-8 years old in an effort to substantiate the link between social networks and school
achievement. The results of this study provided support for the idea that children who
55

have a strong sense of connection with supportive and varied social networks are more
likely to achieve success and stay in school. This point is stressed for students who are
minority and of working class socioeconomic status. The current study is designed to
gauge the connection that AE students of varying ethnic backgrounds have with their
teachers and if these connections translate into a student perception of increased
academic performance.
Markward, McMillan, & Markward (2003) also referred to Stanton-Salazar’s
(2001) work in their study of 89 high school students in a multicultural setting.
Markward, McMillan & Markward’s (2003) study was designed to investigate Stanton-
Salazar’s analyses of Mexican-American youths’ school and kin support networks. It
highlighted the social support networks that promote social capital. These authors
surveyed students to get their perceptions about the frequency and need for social support
from family/friends, peers, and other authority figures such as school personnel. The
students identified family/friends as the primary source of social support over school
personnel and peers. The current study also utilizes a student survey model to gain
student insight and perspective, aiming to discover how students rate the characteristics
of an AE setting in terms of how beneficial that particular factor is in their academic
performance. What is different with the current study and that of Markward, McMillan,
& Markward (2003) is the distinction of responses given based on ethnicity. It would
have been helpful to know from the latter study if there were any variances and to what
degree that students of different ethnicities identified family/friends as primary sources of
social support over peers and school personnel. The current study seeks to investigate
differences in perspective based on ethnic background.
56

Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2005) proceeded to investigate peer networks as a
function of social capital. They found that students reported experiences in which peer
networks succeeded in and failed to provide the necessary social support to overcome or
withstand challenging situations. The authors make a distinction between peer networks
that are romantically based and non-romantically based. Findings showed that non-
romantic relationships were stronger and more positive factors that promoted supportive
social networks.
Study Purpose and Expectations
In this section, the literature on ethnicity and gender will be presented that form
the basis for this study’s purpose and expectations. Following this section of the literature
review, the purpose and expectations will be outlined.
Ethnicity Research
Students of different ethnicities may report different value levels of
importance of student-teacher relationships. Clifton, Hryniuk, Parsonson, & Perry (1986)
found that teachers have lower expectations of their students based on the students’
ethnicity. In their study, questionnaires were submitted to 42 teachers and 748 students to
measure demographics, abilities, attitudes, and achievements. Teacher questionnaires also
measured expectations they had of their students. Using path analysis, the authors
discovered that ethnicity had the second largest effect upon academic performance
regardless of intellectual ability -which has the largest effect- and irrespective of gender.
These lower teacher expectations based on student ethnicity correlated with lower
academic performance.
Thus, it is possible that if teachers have lower expectations of students based on
57

the students’ ethnicity which results in lower academic achievement, students may not
believe that it is important to have a strong, positive relationship with the teacher. It may
even be impossible, given established and accepted differential expectations within a
classroom, for students to develop a strong, positive relationship with a teacher who has
communicated lower expectations to them. Clifton, Hryniuk, Parsonson, & Perry (1986)
assert that teachers may have more positive interactions with students for whom they
have high expectations.
MacMillan, Widaman, Balow, Hemsley, & Little (1992) examined and compared
students from three different academic and ethnic backgrounds on their attitudes toward
school. Eighth grade students (N=1,140) from four Southern California school districts
received the Survey of School Attitudes.
Students were categorized into 3 groups: Regular Classes (RC), Learning
Handicapped (LH), and Educationally Marginal (EM). Significant differences, using a
3x3x2 MANOVA, were found in school attitudes between RC students and LH/EM
students. Results showed that RC students expressed more favorable attitudes toward
school. Significant differences were also found between Anglo student attitudes toward
school and a combined sample of Black and Chicano student attitudes toward school.
Results “unexpectedly” –as mentioned by the authors- showed that Anglo students had
the lowest mean scores on school attitudes compared to Black and Chicano students.
Given the relationship between ethnicity and teacher expectations, in addition to
the importance of student-teacher interactions and the subsequent impact on student
achievement, as well as the general perception that public schools are more attuned to
white, middle class students (MacMillan, Widaman, Balow, Hemsley, & Little, 1992), a
58

key purpose of the current study will be to investigate the differences that ethnically
diverse students perceive regarding social interactions within the AE setting. This study
seeks to discover whether Hispanic, African American, and White students have different
perceptions of student-teacher relationships within the AE setting. Specifically, this study
will investigate whether Hispanic and African American students perceive student-
teacher relationships as more important than White students.
Lee and Burkam (2000) sampled 3,840 high school students and found that school
organization characteristics correlated with high school dropout rates. In instances where
student-teacher relationships are consistently positive, there are lower rates of high school
dropouts. Positive student-teacher relationships are influenced by the organization and
structure of the school. Lee and Burkam (2000) also noted a difference in dropout rates
based on ethnicity, with Hispanics dropping out more than whites and Blacks. If Hispanic
and Black students are performing well in AE, this can be attributed to the AE climate
qualities of supportive relationships and organizational environment.
Teacher support is also a major impetus for academic achievement because if a
student has a teacher who has low expectations or even discriminates, then that can lead
to poor school engagement and performance for that student. According to Hansen
(2005), Hispanic students are more likely than white students to face low teacher
expectations and possible discrimination. Allen (1998) noted similar issues with Black
students who had teachers who couldn’t relate to them because of race. Negative teacher
perceptions and expectations promote a sense of alienation for students as well as
negatively influence student academic achievement. Thus, if Black and Hispanic
students are performing well in the AE setting and we know that one of the main benefits
59

of AE is the characteristic of having supportive relationships and positive student-teacher
interactions, then we would expect that this is the trait about AE that these students will
identify as most beneficial to them.
Gender Research
LeBlanc and Honeycutt (1993) noted subtle differences in dropout rates based on
gender but found larger variance in reasons associated with dropping out. Girls dropped
out due to poor academic achievement but boys dropped out for several reasons: poor
academic achievement, difficulty in relationships with teachers and peers, behavioral
infractions, and overall negative feelings toward school.
The National Women’s Law Center found gender differences in school
engagement and dropout rates that were age-specific. For instance, 9
th
and 10
th
grade
Black and Hispanic girls cited dropping out of school because of poor attendance and
school engagement to a greater degree than boys. However, for Black boys, similar
reasons and rates for dropping out were observed in later high school years (i.e. 11
th

grade). In terms of academic achievement, more girls than boys cited this as a reason for
dropping out. Moreover, gender differences in reactions to school-based stressors were
indicated as an aspect of poor academic achievement. Finally, disciplinary violations
resulted in boys dropping out at a greater rate than girls.
Kim, Fisher, & Fraser (2000) noted gender differences in 543 8
th
grade students in
Korea who were surveyed with the WIHIC (What is Happening in this Class) and QTI
(Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction). The WIHIC has the following 7 scales: Student
Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Investigation, Task Orientation,
Cooperation, and Equity. Boys perceived more teacher support, involvement,
60

investigation, task orientation and equity while girls perceived more student cohesiveness
and cooperation. The QTI has 8 scales: Leadership, Helping/Friendly, Understanding,
Student Responsibility/Freedom, Uncertain, Dissatisfied, Admonishing, and Strict. For
this instrument, boys perceived more Leadership, Helping/Friendly, Understanding and
Responsibility/Freedom behaviors from their teachers while girls were more
‘Dissatisfied’ with their teachers and perceived teacher behavior as more ‘Strict’. For the
present study, the elementary version of the WIHIC, containing 6 scales (deleting
Involvement), will be the survey instrument utilized to investigate differences in student
perception based on gender and ethnicity.
In terms of teacher support, boys, in general, attract more teacher attention than
girls (Gill, 1992). This attention could be either positive or negative given the differences
in socialization of girls and boys. Girls are socialized to sit quietly and be good while the
socialization of boys is accepted as “boys will just be boys” (Witt, 2001). So, although
girls tend to sit quietly and get their work done which requires little teacher attention,
boys tend to get into trouble more often thus requiring more teacher attention, albeit
negative. Moreover, teacher training has not quite caught up to the gender gap and equity
issues in the classroom (Spender, 1982). So, teachers still call on boys more to answer
questions when hands go in the air, thus also receiving more teacher attention, which in
this case is positive. Therefore, girls are expected to rate self-efficacy as higher than boys
but teacher support as lower than boys.
Regarding school subjects, there is also a tendency to find gender separation.
Girls are underrepresented in math and science courses (Bailey, 1993). Girls also score
lower on math achievement tests (Mullis, Dossey, Owen, & Phillips; 1993). While boys
61

tend to score better in math and science, girls tend to score better in reading and writing
(Millard, 1997). For this reason, if classes are organized where a lot of work is math-,
science-, or technology-based, then girls may not perform as well as boys and we would
expect gender differences in perceptions of experience.
Purpose/Expectations
The purpose of this study is to explore the differences in student perception of AE
setting characteristics among Black, Hispanic, and White students and between female
and male students. The specific setting characteristics are supportive relationships,
organizational environment, and self-efficacy. Based on the literature, it is expected that
Black and Hispanic students will identify supportive relationships and organizational
environment to a greater degree than White students as the characteristics they experience
as most beneficial, and task orientation to a lower degree than White students. Finally, it
is believed that girls will rate their experiences of teacher support and organizational
environment as lower than boys, while their perception of self-efficacy as higher than
boys.
Summary of Literature
The research on Alternative Education programs has detailed characteristics of
effective programs and more specifically characteristics that directly promote student
academic achievement. Self-efficacy/ individualized curriculum, organizational/structural
characteristics, and social connections/ supportive relationships are identified categories
which focus the discussion on what has been done while also pointing a way for future
research in AE settings. These categories are also helpful in discussing non-traditional
measurements of student success. Since AE students struggle academically, it would
62

make sense to find more clientele-specific methods of determining academic success for
them. For these at-risk students, measuring academic achievement by cumulative grades,
GPA’s, and standardized test scores does not provide a clear and complete picture of
what they may know or understand when it comes to academic subjects or skill levels.
Many of these students have not successfully progressed from class to class and grade to
grade. Consistent attendance is an important part of the problem which detracts from their
ability to do well on traditional measures of academic achievement, i.e. grades, GPA, test
scores. In my experience, it is actually rare to have a student in my class who has earned
the appropriate number of credits for his age level e.g. age 17 with junior level credits.
Given this understanding, non-performance-based measurements of student success are
necessary for this student population (refer to discussion in Chapter 1).
Addressing an AE program or research study from a cultural perspective could
provide a way of understanding why some programs are more successful than others. It
could also provide insight for future studies that would allow for new constructs to be
factored into the effectiveness equation and methods of measuring success. Earlier in this
chapter, ethnicity was established as a factor in the academic achievement of students
given that teacher expectations are based on student ethnicity (Clifton, Hryniuk,
Parsonson, & Perry, 1986; MacMillan, Widaman, Balow, Hemsley, & Little, 1992). So,
teachers, like every other human being who has prejudices of some type, can allow the
prejudices they have which are based on ethnicity, to influence what their expectation
levels are of students in their classroom. Ethnicity, therefore, functions as a detriment to
the success of the student who, according to the literature, has a subsequent low academic
achievement corresponding to the low teacher expectation.
63

The argument was then developed that students who are not expected to do well
and who subsequently live up (or down) to that expectation probably will not have or see
the value of having strong, positive interactions or relationships with their teachers
(Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004). Therefore, future investigations analyzing academic
achievement, particularly in AE settings should focus a lens on student ethnicity as a
factor of student achievement and attitude toward school. The mechanism behind
increased school performance could be examined and explained given greater discussions
on interpersonal relationships and student ethnicity.
These factors and discussions about student academic achievement in AE settings
frequently center on students’ social networks and the mechanisms for which those
networks translate into positive school performance. Listening to students’ voices further
provides an arena for interpreting how these social networks affect students’ behavior in
school.
Conclusions
The next step in our research, then, is to explore the effect of the educational
relationships experienced by students. Expanding the research in this manner could be
particularly telling for students who have not been the beneficiaries of caring and
nurturing relationships or other educational enhancements to promote academic
achievement. What are the results of unsupportive relationships for students who are
already at-risk of school failure? Could teacher choice of which students receive the
implicit professional responsibilities (i.e. mentor, psychologist, and counselor), be a
factor in the equation of at-risk students being removed from traditional school settings
due to disciplinary reasons? This study seeks to shed light on this discussion and provide
64

insight into what changes can be created to help at-risk students before they are given a
“forced choice” educational setting.
Based on the literature, we can conclude that it is important to solicit the student
perspective on what helps them succeed academically. We know that specific
characteristics of the Alternative Education setting are what make these settings
beneficial for at-risk students. However, the research has failed to distinguish between
different types of students when making inquiries about program effectiveness or student
perception within the AE setting. Traditional literature on the other hand has provided a
window for delineating differences in student outcomes based on ethnicity and even
gender. Exploring differences between ethnic groups and genders enhances our
understanding of what works for various students and creates a more accurate picture of
who students are and how they function in school. This exploration will also lend
credence to ethnic and/or gender specific interventions.
Implications
Research has consistently provided us with a model for understanding the
importance of the impact of student-teacher relationships. The next step is to focus this
understanding on specific subgroups of students. Given that student-teacher relationships
are one of the most important characteristics of the AE setting, it would behoove us to
investigate how different subgroups of at-risk students perceive the importance of the
impact of this characteristic. This study’s purpose is to identify what AE characteristics
are identified by different types of at-risk as the primary characteristics that encourage
them toward academic success. Given that the research distinguishes the range of student
outcomes, from academic achievement to dropout, as being different based on ethnicity
65

and gender, this study will also investigate student perception of AE program
characteristic based on these demographics.

66

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of at-risk students in an
Alternative Education setting who have been removed from the traditional school setting
due to disciplinary reasons. The study sought to investigate which characteristics of the
AE setting are beneficial to students of different ethnicities and gender and determine
potential differences in perception.
Research Question
Is there a difference in perception by gender or ethnicity, regarding environmental or
school characteristics within the Alternative Education setting?
Research Design
Population and Sample
Participants in the study were students from the Riverside County Alternative
Education (RCOE) program. The author was a teacher in RCOE and had researched and
or visited the different school sites and programs. RCOE is responsible for the education
of, on average, 7,600 students yearly, within 4 unique programs: Home Education,
CalSafe, Court Schools and Community Schools. The community schools are those
designed to serve students who are expelled from the traditional, public school districts
for violations of Zero Tolerance Policy (violence, harassment, and weapon or drug
possession). The focus of this study was on students within the Community School and
CalSafe programs. There are 19 community schools in which are 45 teachers (including
this author) and classrooms with about 3,000 students in geographic cities from Riverside
to Indio.
67

This study included a purposeful sample of students in RCOE’s AE program from
Perris, Moreno Valley, and Riverside cities due to geographical limitations of the
researcher. The students in these classes, approximately 350, were administered a survey
with an oversampling of female students due to their historic underrepresentation in the
AE population. The survey queried the students on the most salient characteristics of the
alternative education setting that, according to the literature, are familiar to students.
These characteristics are: organizational environment, self-efficacy, and social
connections/ supportive relationships.
Instrumentation
The elementary version of the WIHIC, What is Happening in this Class, (See
Appendix) was used to investigate the variables of ethnicity, gender and AE program
characteristic. The WIHIC was developed by Fraser, Fisher, and McRobbie (1996) to
measure high school students’ perceptions of the classroom environment. It combined
relevant dimensions from previous learning environment instruments such as
investigation and relationships between teacher and student (Dorman, 2003). The WIHIC
reliably measures students’ perceptions of important elements in their learning
environment and demonstrates predictive validity on both cognitive and affective
outcomes (Fraser, 2002). The WIHIC is one of the most widely-used instruments in the
domain of learning environments research and has been validated in a number of
countries, making it cross-culturally valid (Dorman, 2003).
The elementary version of the WIHIC which employs a three-point Likert
response scale (Almost Never, Sometimes, and Almost Always) has the following six
scales each containing eight items: Student Cohesiveness (SC), Teacher Support (TS),
68

Investigation (IV), Task Orientation (TO), Cooperation (CO), and Equity (E). Three of
these scales TS, IV, and TO will be the focus for this study. TS is the extent to which the
teacher helps, befriends, trusts, and is interested in students. A sample item is “The
teacher cares about my feelings”. This scale will be used to measure the AE characteristic
Supportive Relationships. IV is the extent to which students have attentive interest and
participate in discussions. A sample item is “I do investigations in this class”. The IV
scale will be used to measure the AE characteristic Organizational Environment. Finally,
TO is the extent to which it is important to complete activities planned and to stay on the
subject matter. A sample item is “I know how much work I have to do”. This scale will
be used to measure the AE characteristic Self-Efficacy. These three scales were isolated
to reflect the AE school climate characteristics because each of their eight items lean
toward a direct representation of the respective AE characteristics.
Placed at the top of the survey were questions to identify the students’ gender,
age, ethnicity, time in class, and citizenship. Students could circle “Black”, “Hispanic”,
or “White” for ethnicity, as well as circle their appropriate age with options <13 to 18.
Students could also circle their appropriate gender and choose from being in class for
about one week, one month, or three months. Finally, they could circle “Yes” or “No” for
the prompt “Born in the U.S.” They were asked to write in their birth country if they
circled “No”.
The survey sought to address two purposes. The first was to discover student
perspective regarding AE characteristics that they are most familiar with. The second was
to discover the similarities or differences in student response based on ethnicity and
gender of student. The independent variables were ethnicity (3 levels: Black, Latino, and
69

White) and gender (2 levels: Male, Female). The dependent variable was the student’s
ranking of the AE setting characteristics, specifically: relationships within a supportive
environment (TS), organizational environment (IV), and self-efficacy (TO). These
characteristics are the main categories that will be identified on the survey.
Data Collection
Surveys were administered to the students by the researcher. The researcher
traveled to each classroom after contacting each teacher and administrator and arranging
an appropriate date and time frame. The researcher traveled to each site twice. On the
first visit, the study was explained and students were asked to help the researcher find out
what they like about Alternative Education as compared to traditional school. No
incentives were offered for cooperation; however, no student was forced to complete the
survey. Students received consent forms to be completed by parents. On the second visit,
the researcher collected signed consent forms and administered the questionnaire
appropriately. The researcher distributed the questionnaire to the students, waited for
students to complete them, provided clarification on items, and finally collected all
completed forms. Each visit lasted 15-30 minutes.
Data Analysis
The three-level dependent variable, student ranking of AE characteristic in terms
of experience and importance, were assessed according to the independent variables,
ethnicity (Black, Latino, & White) and gender (male, female). Students were asked to
choose their primary identifying ethnic group and gender. The questionnaire included
questions/queries per AE program characteristic to determine which ethnic groups and
gender showed preponderance toward which characteristic. It was expected that Black
70

and Hispanic students would rate their perceptions of supportive relationships and
organizational environments as higher than White students but their perceptions of self-
efficacy as lower than White students. In terms of gender, females were expected to rate
their perceptions of self-efficacy as higher than males while rating their perception of
supportive relationships and organizational environment as lower than males.
Student responses on each of the three subscales were analyzed and compared by
gender and ethnicity. Analysis by ethnicity was first conducted via a one way ANOVA.
Subsequently, ethnicity and gender were analyzed via t-tests to determine similarities or
differences attributable to various perspectives based on ethnic background or gender
differences. Findings are presented in Chapter 4.
71

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
In this chapter, the statistical results will be presented. First, the descriptive
statistics will be reviewed. Then, findings from the statistical procedures, t-tests and
ANOVA’s will be discussed. Following this will be an address of the results relative to
the research question. Concluding this chapter will be a summary of the findings overall.
Descriptive Statistics
The sample contained 350 participants. Of these, 139 (39.7%) were female and
210 (60%) were male. One participant did not list a gender. Participants represented all
ethnicities. There were 59 (17%) Black students, 224 (64%) Hispanic students, 46 (13%)
White students, 4 (1%) Asian students, and 3 (1%) Native American students. Finally,
students of mixed ethnic background represented 4% of the sample with 14 completing
surveys. Participants ranged in age from 13-19 years old and some had been in the
classroom one day while others had been in the same class for more than a year.
Participants were enrolled in 23 different classrooms with 9 Black teachers, 3 Hispanic
teachers, 10 White teachers, and 1 Asian/Pacific Islander teacher, 14 of whom were
female and 9 of whom were male. (See Tables 1, 2, and 3).

Table 1 Study Participants by Gender
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender
N=350
F M No Response
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# participants 139 (39.7%) 210 (60%) 1 (.3%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72

Table 2 Study Participants by Ethnicity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity _____
N=350
Black Hispanic White Asian Nat. Am. Mixed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# participants 59 (16.9%) 224 (64%) 46 (13.1%) 4 (1.1%) 3 (.9%) 14 (4%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3 Study Participants by Ethnicity and Gender
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity _____
N=349
Black Hispanic White Asian Nat. Am. Mixed Tot
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female 23 (6.6%) 81 (23%) 25 (7.1%) 3 (.9%) 3 (.9%) 4 (1.1%) 139
Male 36 (10.3%) 142 (41%) 21 (6%) 1 (.28%) 0 (0%) 10 (2.9%) 210
Total 59 223 46 4 3 14 349
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Pearson Chi-square test was performed to examine the relation between gender
and ethnicity. The relation between the variables was significant X
2
(5, N= 349) = 12.55,
p <.05, showing unequal distribution (See Table 4 below).

73

Table 4 Gender * Ethnicity Cross tabulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Hispanic White Asian Nat. Am Mixed Total
F 23 81 25 3 3 4 139
w/n gen 16.5% 58.3% 18% 2.2% 2.2% 2.9% 100%
w/n eth 39% 36.3% 54.3% 75% 100% 28.6% 39.8%
M 36 142 21 1 0 10 210
w/n gen 17.1% 67.6% 10% 0.5% 0% 4.8% 100%
w/n eth 61% 63.7% 45.7% 25% 0% 71.4% 60.2%
Total 59 223 46 4 3 14 349
w/n gen 16.9% 63.9% 13.2% 1.1% 0.9% 4% 100%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Findings
This study explored gender and ethnic differences in AE setting characteristics
using the elementary version of the WIHIC. It was expected that there would be
differences across all subscales and their respective AE setting characteristics based on
ethnicity and gender. Specifically, it was expected that Black and Hispanic students
would rate supportive relationships and organizational environment higher than White
students, while rating self-efficacy as lower than Whites. In terms of gender, it was
expected that females would rate self-efficacy as higher than boys, but supportive
relationships and organizational environments as lower.
Overall, females scored significantly higher than males on all instrument
subscales and all setting characteristics. Black students scored higher on all subscales and
74

AE characteristics compared to White students although these differences were not
significant. Hispanic students actually scored lower than White students on all subscales
and AE setting characteristics, yet these differences were also not significant.
Unexpectedly, Black students scored significantly higher than Hispanic students on two
of the subscales, IV and TO, and their respective AE setting characteristic, organizational
environment and self-efficacy. The following section will detail the results of the
statistical analyses conducted relative to the study’s expectations.
Findings Relative to Research Question
Recall that the research question was: Is there a difference in perception by
gender or ethnicity, regarding environmental or school characteristics within the
Alternative Education setting? Alternative Education setting characteristics utilized for
this study included relationships within a supportive environment, organizational
environment, and self-efficacy. These characteristics were housed in the WIHIC
subscales TS- teacher support for supportive relationships, IV- investigation for
organizational environment, and TO- task orientation for self-efficacy.
Gender
T-tests were conducted on the three subscales to explore gender differences. A t-
test of female and male students on the IV (Investigation) subscale indicated a significant
difference, t(336) = 2.97, p < .05. That is, the average perception of the Investigation
score of female students (M = 15.63, SD = 4.93) was significantly greater than that of
male students (M = 14.06, SD = 4.70). Female students scored significantly higher than
male students in perceptions of investigation (See Table 5).
75

The subscale TS comprises the construct Supportive Relationships. A t-test of
female and male students on the TS (Teacher Support) subscale indicated a significant
difference, t(326) = 2.68, p < .05. Findings of the average perception of the Teacher
Support score of female students (M = 18.81, SD = 4.78) were significantly higher than
those of male students (M = 17.41, SD = 4.55) (See Table 5).
Female students also scored higher than male students in perceptions of teacher
support. For TO, t-test results indicate that there was a significant difference in
perception of self-efficacy between females and males t(336) = 4.91, p < .05. Thus,
female students (M = 22.45) were more likely to report a higher perception than male
students (M = 20.11) on self-efficacy. Conclusively, female students scored significantly
higher than male students on every AE setting characteristic, all of the subscales, and the
WIHIC as a whole, t(276) = 4.384, p < .001 (See Table 5).

Table 5 Gender differences in perception on subscales TS, IV, TO and the WIHIC**
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency
Scale Mean (F) SD (F) Mean (M) SD (M) df t
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TS 18.81 4.78 17.41 4.55 326
2.68*
IV 15.63 4.93 14.06 4.70 336
2.97*
TO 22.45 4.55 20.11 3.96 336
4.91*
WIHIC 113.22 17.55 102.82 20.99 276
4.38**
*p< .05 level ; **p<.001
76

Recall that to increase the sample size for girls, this study oversampled for girls, utilizing
girls found in a different AE treatment setting called CalSafe, a program for pregnant and
parenting teens. Table 6 (below) shows the results of the one-way analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) that was conducted for the purpose of exploring whether the significant
gender difference could be attributable to treatment type. The independent variable was
gender. The dependent variable was perception of AE setting characteristic and the
covariate was type of treatment. The ANCOVA was significant for: (a) Investigation F
(1, 535) = 5.78, p < .05 whereby the mean for girls (M = 15.63) was greater than the
mean for boys (M = 14.06); (b) Task Orientation F ( 1, 535) = 25.97, p < .05 in which
the mean for girls (M = 22.45) was greater than the mean for boys (M =20.11); and (c)
Teacher Support F ( 1, 535) = 5.78, p < .05 which showed a mean for girls of (M = 18.81)
being higher than the mean for boys (M = 17.41). Therefore, it seems that the result of
significant gender differences can be attributed to the variance in treatment type and
setting experienced by girls, who are in the Cal-Safe AE setting and boys, who are in the
community school AE setting.

Table 6 Treatment Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency
Scale Mean (F) SD (F) Mean (M) SD (M) F p
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TS 18.81 4.78 17.41 4.55 10.85 .001
IV 15.63 4.93 14.06 4.70 5.78 .017
TO 22.45 4.55 20.11 3.96 25.97 .000
*p< .05 level ;

77

Ethnicity
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the differences between the three
ethnic groups on supportive relationships (subscale TS), organizational environment
(subscale IV), and self-efficacy (subscale TO). The one-way ANOVA revealed that there
were no significant differences in perception of supportive relationships among the three
ethnic groups, Black, Hispanic, and White, F(5, 291), p>.05. The ANOVA also showed
no significant differences in perception of organizational environment among the ethnic
groups, F(5, 314), p> .05. Finally, the findings of the one-way ANOVA revealed no
differences in perception of self-efficacy among the ethnic groups, F(5, 333), p>.05. (See
Table 7).

Table 7 Analysis of Variance for Significant Differences in Perception
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F
Students df Black Hispanic White
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between subjects
Supportive Relationships 5
Organizational Environment 5 .741
Self-efficacy 5 .715
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*p < .05.

Despite the results of the ANOVA, independent sample t-tests were run to
determine significant differences on each subscale and between pairs of ethnic groups.
An independent sample t-test showed no significant differences between White and Black
students or White and Hispanic students on any of the subscales and consequently none
of the AE setting characteristics. However, the t-test with Black and Hispanic students for
subscales TS, IV and TO did reveal significant differences on two of the three subscales.
78

Results, as displayed in Table 8 below, showed a significant difference in
Organizational Environment, housed in subscale IV, t(271) = 2.171, p < .05 and Self-
Efficacy, housed in subscale TO, t(272) = 1.993, p < .05. Specifically, the average
perception of Organizational Environment –subscale IV- for Black students (M = 15.84,
SD = 4.67) was significantly higher than that of Hispanic students (M = 14.30, SD =
4.85). For self-efficacy, the average perception of Black students (M = 22.02, SD = 5.24)
was also significantly greater than that of Hispanic students (M = 20.69, SD = 4.31).
Therefore, for both subscales, Investigation and Task Orientation, Black students scored
significantly higher than Hispanic students. Accordingly, Black students have higher
ratings for the AE school climate characteristics organizational environment and self-
efficacy.

Table 8 Black and Hispanic differences in perception on IV-organizational environment
and TO-self-efficacy*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency
Scale Mean (B) SD (B) Mean (H) SD (H) df t
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV 15.84 4.67 14.30 4.85 271 2.17*
TO 22.02 5.24 20.69 4.31 272 1.99*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Items significant at the .05 level.

To further explore why our expectation was not played out, we tested the
reliability of the scale via a Cronbach’s alpha test across ethnicity (See Table 9 below).
79

The Cronbach’s alpha for Teacher Support, Investigation, and Task Orientation
respectively are as follows: (a) Black students .906, .895, and .505; (b) Hispanic students
.920, .919, and .798; and (c) White students .910, .917, and .929. The WIHIC proved
reliable for each ethnic group and scale except for Black students and Task Orientation.
Based on the results of the Cronbach’s alpha test, item 35 “I know the goals for this
class.” was removed. Minus this item, the Cronbach’s alpha for Black students and Task
Orientation became .873. Therefore, this one item was the only item which was not
consistent and reliable for the subscale. Recalling that the independent sample t-test
showed a difference between Black and Hispanic students on the subscale Task
Orientation, this may have been the source for that observed difference.

Table 9: Cronbach’s Alpha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teacher Support Investigation Task Orientation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black .906 .895 .505
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic .920 .919 .798
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White .910 .917 .929
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To further investigate reasons for differences observed versus expected in
ethnicity, an ANCOVA was also performed to see if there was a treatment effect. Table
10 shows the results of the one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The
independent variable was ethnicity. The dependent variable was perception of AE setting
characteristic and the covariate was type of treatment. The ANCOVA was significant for
all subscales across ethnicity. For Investigation F (1, 532) = 2.69, p < .05 whereby the
80

mean for Blacks (M = 15.70) was greater than the mean for Whites (M = 14.32) and
Hispanics (M = 14.03). In terms of Task Orientation F (1, 532) = 2.48, p < .05 in which
the mean for Blacks (M = 21.69) was greater than the mean for Whites (M = 21.11) and
Hispanics (M = 20.29). Finally for Teacher Support F ( 1, 517) = 2.39, p < .05 which
showed a mean for Blacks (M = 18.57) was greater than the mean for Whites (M = 18.23)
and Hispanics (M = 17.43). Therefore, it seems that the result of no significant ethnic
differences can be attributed to the variance in treatment type and setting experienced by
Black, Hispanic, and White students in the two different settings.

Table 10 Treatment Effect Ethnicity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency
Scale Mean (B) SD (B) Mean (H) SD (H) Mean (W) SD (W) F p
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TS 18.57 4.72 17.43 4.69 18.23 4.47 2.39 .037*
IV 15.70 4.70 14.03 4.78 14.32 4.49 2.69 .02*
TO 21.69 4.70 20.29 4.23 21.11 3.68 2.48 .031*
*p< .05 level ;

Summary of Findings
Overall, the results indicate that there was a significant difference in student
perception of AE school characteristics based on gender and, to a lesser degree, ethnicity.
Specifically, there was a vast difference in student perception between female and male
students. On every subscale of the WIHIC survey instrument, girls perceived or rated
more positively their experiences in the Alternative Education setting. Therefore, in terms
81

of this study, specifically referring to the AE school climate characteristics identified
(relationships within a supportive environment, organizational environment, and self-
efficacy), female students were found to have a decidedly higher rating of perception of
experience in all areas. However, it is likely that this significant difference is attributable
to a treatment effect.
In terms of ethnicity, there was also a significant difference in student perception
but not as pervasive as with gender. There were no significant differences between Black
and White students or Hispanic and White students, but there were significant differences
between Black and Hispanic students. These differences were housed in two of the
subscales (IV and TO) and their respective AE setting characteristics: organizational
environment and self-efficacy. Black students rated their experiences higher than
Hispanic students in each subscale. Subsequent tests on the reliability of the instrument
found it to be reliable across ethnicity, except for the TO subscale for Black students.
In the following chapter, these findings will be discussed in greater detail relative
to the purpose and expectations of the study. Recommendations for future study will be
provided as will recommendations for change in policy and practice.
82

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to investigate gender and ethnic differences in perception
regarding school climate characteristics in the Alternative Education setting. Ethnically
diverse at-risk students were surveyed with the elementary version of the WIHIC. The
goal was to determine which school climate characteristics were perceived by different
ethnic groups or genders as most beneficial to their academic achievement. Students’
responses demonstrated differences in perspective and experience.
This study predicted that there would be gender differences and differences across
the board among all ethnicities. Specifically, it was expected that Black and Hispanic
students would rate the AE characteristic supportive relationships and organizational
environment higher than White students, while rating self-efficacy as lower than Whites.
In terms of gender, it was expected that females would rate self-efficacy as higher than
boys, but supportive relationships and organizational environments as lower.
Review of Findings
Gender differences were widely found across the survey instrument. Research by
Bailey (1993) and Mullis, Dossey, Owen, & Phillips (1993) regarding girls being
underrepresented in and performing worse than boys in math and science classes, Gill
(1992) regarding girls receiving less teacher attention than boys, as well as the different
societal socialization practices of gender (Witt, 2001), all supported the expectation that
girls would rate self-efficacy higher than boys, while rating supportive relationships and
organizational environments as lower. In actuality, girls perceived all of their experiences
as significantly greater than those of boys’. For each subscale, girls’ perception scores
83

were higher than boy’s perception scores. Subsequently, girls’ mean scores for
perceptions of supportive relationships, self-efficacy, and organizational environment, the
AE characteristics, were also greater than those of boys’. Moreover, on 83% of the 48
WIHIC items, the average scores for girls were greater than the average scores for boys.
Gender differences, however, may be attributable to treatment effects.
It is very likely that the observed difference between genders was caused by a
treatment effect, more so than as a result of the instrument alone. Recall that to increase
the sub-sample population for females, this study chose to utilize two different AE
settings, community schools where females are underrepresented, and Cal-Safe schools
where they are predominant. A significant gender difference was found regarding AE
school climate characteristics, which intuitively makes sense given the differences in the
types of AE programs. Cal-Safe is an AE program designed to meet the needs of pregnant
and parenting teens whereas community schools were designed as a placement issue of
where to put students who have been removed from the traditional school setting. Given
that the programs are inherently different, although both considered “alternative
education” settings, herein lies the danger of sampling and conducting studies with
unmatched populations. In this case, to compensate for the low incidence of females in
AE community schools, the tradeoff may have encumbered the results, and therefore may
be the foundation for the results being so widely different from the expectations with
girls’ perceptions of their experiences in AE significantly higher than those of boys. What
was observed was, more than likely, not a difference in perception of experience between
genders as measured by the WIHIC instrument but an actual difference in experience
resulting from the uniquely different types of treatments or AE programs that the genders
84

underwent. Clearly, future studies would need to ensure that settings are matched across
genders.
To a lesser degree, ethnic differences were also found. It was believed that there
would be significant differences between Black and White students or Hispanic and
White students. Stanton-Salazar’s (2001) finding that Hispanic students in mainstream
schools are at a disadvantage in developing social networks, Aronson’s (1995) work
stating that social networks, e.g. the supportive relationships found in AE schools and its
characteristic sense of community, are the most important factor influencing academic
success of at-risk students, Macmillan, Widaman, Balow, Hemsley, and Little’s (1992)
results showing significant differences between Anglo students and a combined sample
of Black and Chicano students, and finally, Clifton, Perry, Parsonson, and Hryniuk’s
(1986) findings regarding teachers’ expectations of their students based on ethnicity- in
addition to other research-, all combined to form the foundation for this study’s
expectation that there would be significant differences between Black and White students
and Hispanic and White students. These expectations were not borne out by the results.
There were no significant differences between Black and White students or Hispanic and
White students.
Quite unexpectedly, differences were found between Black and Hispanic students.
Black students scored significantly higher than Hispanic students on two subscales, IV =
Investigation and TO = Task Orientation. These subscales correspond to the AE school
climate characteristics organizational environment and self-efficacy, respectively. Thus,
Black students demonstrated greater perception than Hispanic students in experiences
regarding self-efficacy and organization environment.
85

Although differences in ethnicity were not found widely across the results, several
reasons could be the case. First, the WIHIC utilizes a three-point Likert scale versus a
four- or five-point Likert scale. The decreased point scale may have reduced the
reliability for this population. Unfortunately, this population is an academically taxed
group, meaning these academically at-risk students had a difficult time completing this
survey, which is actually the elementary version. Some students had to be reminded
multiple times that there were two sides to the survey that needed to be completed. Some
students had to be reminded of the importance of not just circling all the 2’s from top to
bottom but to actually read each of the 48 items and respond with their honest perception,
1 for almost never, 2 for sometimes, and 3 for almost always. So, given the unique
population characteristics, it may have been the case that a longer and more involved
survey involving carefully delineating between 1= never, 2= almost never, 3 =
sometimes, 4= almost always, and 5= always, would not have yielded reliable results
anyway.
Another reason why expected and observed results differed may be attributable to
the small subgroup sample sizes. Out of sample population 350, only 17% were Black
and 13% White, while 64% were Hispanic. Although these percentages are equitable to
the demographics within the surrounding city and county, it still could have been a reason
to account for the result of no ethnic differences in perception of AE climate
characteristics between specific ethnic groups. Small inter-group sample sizes likely
decreased the power of the ANOVA. The overall large N, once disaggregated into ethnic
groups, resulted in small cell sizes for Black and White students. These small group
86

numbers weakened the statistical power of the ANOVA, providing a clear
recommendation for future studies of greater inter-group sample sizes.
Overall, the survey results showed that Black students rated their perception of
experiences as highest, followed by White students and finally by Hispanic students.
There was not a great difference from Black (highest) to White (middle) and White
(middle) to Hispanic (lowest), but there was a significant difference from Black (highest)
to Hispanic (lowest). This variance in result from what was expected may be a
consequence of the instrument items and subscales being understood differently across
ethnic groups. Implications and recommendations from these results follow.
Implications for Theory
Ethnicity
A great amount of research has been conducted which demonstrates differences
between Black and White (Macmillan, Widaman, Balow, Hemsley, and Little, 1992;
Sekayi, 2001) students as well as Hispanic and White students (Stanton-Salazar, 2001;
Clifton, Perry, Parsonson, Hryniuk, 1986). Some of this research was covered in earlier
chapters. Since Alternative Education had been a sparsely researched arena, it was
believed that ethnic differences would also be experienced in this setting as well.
Moreover, this study sought to examine student-reported experiences and perceptions
since this is also a less widely used method of research, particularly with at-risk students.
By combining these two avenues, it was believed that serious differences would be
exposed.
This was not the case. In fact, the findings revealed potential differences among
so-called under-represented students in terms of education and perception as opposed to
87

differences between so-called minorities and non-minority students. According to this
study, there was a difference between Black and Hispanic students but not between Black
and White or Hispanic and White students. Possibly the cultural differences between
Blacks and Hispanics are even greater than what has already been explored and
uncovered in the research between Black and Whites or between Hispanics and Whites.
Perceptions of educational experiences between Black and Hispanic students in
academics should be explored to determine if cultural differences or past experiences in
general lead to differences in how education is perceived.
Another possibility for this divergence from what was expected could be centered
on the gender or ethnicity of the teacher. Maybe Black and Hispanic students respond
differently to male and female teachers but not so differently from how White students
respond to teacher gender. In addition to teacher ethnicity or gender, this could also be
influenced by other teacher factors like length of employment, style, ability, or other
inherent teacher qualities. Another possibility, according to the literature, might be lack
of teacher training to adequately deal with the language issues or barriers associated with
Spanish-speaking students and English-speaking teachers (ECS, 2004). This will further
be discussed in the Implications section.
Gender
To account for the difference in study findings versus study expectations, future
research may also need to look at developmental differences based on gender. Girls
develop and mature faster than boys Lenroot et al., (2007). The manners in which this
faster development and maturity play out could influence female students to exhibit
greater perception of their experiences in educational settings. Future research could
88

address this possibility. Another possibility that could be explored is girls’ greater
interpersonal investment in relationships (Rizzo, Daley, & Gunderson, 2006) relative to
boys’ within the AE setting and whether this influences greater academic achievement for
girls. Research suggests that girls are more attuned to relationships than boys (Sperling &
Berman, 1994). It could be that if an AE program is intentional about relationships, girls
may be picking up on this more than boys, plus it may matter more to girls than it does to
boys and could therefore be a factor stimulating greater academic performance.
Implications for Research
Ethnicity
Earlier, potential reasons for differences between expected and observed results
were discussed. Based on this discussion, it is recommended that a more rigorous scale is
used. This increased rigor might be accomplished by increasing the measure from a 3-
point Likert-scale to a 5-point Likert scale. Another suggestion for future studies could be
to increase the subgroup sample size. In this study, Hispanic students overwhelmed the
sample. By increasing the subgroup sample size of Black and White students, thereby
increasing the power of future statistical tests, i.e. ANOVA’s, in addition to the other
modifications of a different scale and/or a more rigorous instrument, the expectation of
perceptual differences in AE setting characteristics among ethnicities may play out.
Another telling result was the difference in score regarding each AE setting
characteristic. We know where the differences were, but now in analyzing the actual
characteristics we can see some striking trends. Task Orientation -which this study
equated with Self-Efficacy- was the highest rated AE setting characteristic. For example,
Black students’ ratings showed that on average, they rated most of these items as almost
89

always perceiving or experiencing them. However, Investigation –which this study
equated with Organizational Environment, was the lowest rated AE setting characteristic.
Black students experienced or perceived these items as “only sometimes’. This can be
interpreted as meaning Self-Efficacy is a more important factor in terms of academic
achievement than Organizational Environment or even Supportive Relationships.
The results further demonstrated that all students rated Self-Efficacy items higher
than the Organizational Environment items. This seems to suggest that for all students, no
matter what ethnicity, their ability to understand the work, to know and accomplish the
goals, and being ready to complete the work are really the foundation for student
academic success, more so than how the school or classroom is organized. This might be
the core mechanism, to expound on Cox’s (1999) suggestion for future study, of why
ARS are more successful in AE compared to traditional schools.
This would also flesh out why De la Rosa (1998) found that only 10% of former
dropouts cited family pressure as the reason why they returned to school. In reporting that
96% indicated they felt school was important, quite possibly they were saying, “it is up to
me to set the goal and achieve the goal”, which are all components of self-efficacy. This
is also clearly demonstrated in Nichols and Utesch’s (1998) finding that students who
dropped out of an AE program had higher extrinsic motivation than those who remained
in the program. Intrinsic motivation is part and parcel of self-efficacy; and just as Nichols
and Utesch found that high extrinsic motivation correlated with dropping out of a
program, high intrinsic motivation, e.g. self-efficacy, was found to be the most important
AE school climate characteristic as rated by all students regardless of ethnicity or gender.
90

An implication for future research would be to design a study in which the
experimental group of AE students is allowed to design their own goal program within
the parameters of high school graduation credits and timelines and the control group does
not have this choice. For example the experimental group students could decide to work
on only one book at a time every day while in school while the control group works on
three or more subjects daily. Pre- and post-test scores could reveal differences in
attendance, perceptions of school, self-esteem, levels of completion versus grades, etc.
It’s possible that student choice and goal setting may be a small factor that hasn’t been
acknowledged in the AE literature which is the foundation for why AE programs, which
are characteristically individualized, work for at-risk students.
Future research could further investigate whether at-risk AE students perform
better if they have only one academic subject to work on at a time, compared to at-risk
students who work on multiple academic subjects simultaneously. It may be the case that
at-risk students who are given only one subject at a time are able to focus their attention
and hence get more work accomplished. AE at-risk students could be queried whether it
is better for them to start and finish one subject/book at a time or if it’s better for them to
work on multiple books simultaneously.
Gender
Further study to account for the difference in expectation versus findings could
focus on age of participants. If the girls in this study tended to be older than the boys then
they may have more reason to rate their perceptions as higher as a function of greater
maturity. Future research could compare girls and boys based on same age criteria to see
if the differences are still found.
91

Another, more plausible possibility, to explain the wide divergence from
expectation to findings in this study could be school type and thus a treatment effect. For
this study, due to the fact that girls are underrepresented in community schools and AE in
general, the study utilized girls within the Cal-Safe program –a separate AE program
designed to address the needs of pregnant and parenting girls. Even with this
modification, the percentage of girls still only reached 39%. Pregnant and parenting girls
in a specialized program – e.g. enhanced organizational environment- may tend to be
more focused on and engaged in school. Moreover, teachers in this program may provide
greater support and thus enhance the student-teacher relationship. This may account for
why girls scored vastly higher than boys on all subscales of the WIHIC and all AE setting
characteristics. They did not perceive their experiences differently, they actually had
different experiences. It is suggested that future studies make different modifications to
account for the decreased numbers of girls in AE and in so doing decrease potential
covariance as a consequence of treatment type and selection bias, if the focus of the study
is to explore gender differences in the AE setting. Future studies should have a more
balanced sample, greater numbers and equal numbers of males and females in matched
settings to reduce possible treatment effects. In this manner, future studies could more
accurately attribute differences to gender only.
Further studies may also seek to examine differences – gender or ethnic- in
perspective based on a wider range of criteria. This study utilized the elementary version
of WIHIC, an instrument that has been validated across various cultures. The WIHIC is
divided into six sections of eight questions each. The current study utilized three of the
six sections as a basis for the three school climate characteristics. Specifically, the eight
92

questions comprising the Investigation section were the foundation for the Organizational
Environment AE characteristic. The eight questions comprising the Teacher Support
section were the basis for the Supportive Relationships AE characteristic. Finally, the
eight questions comprising the Task Orientation section of the WIHIC were used to
assess the Self-efficacy AE characteristic.
In the future, studies may seek to investigate the AE characteristics by utilizing
more than eight queries as a basis for each construct. The current study was limited by
the instrument used. The instrument also appeared to not be reliable against interethnic
rigor tests. Possibly, the items and subscales didn’t hold together across ethnicity.
Future studies may choose to utilize a different instrument that simultaneously
garners the student voice while also adequately bringing forth the information desired, as
well as being able to garner a large sample as this study accomplished. Finally, future
studies with a different methodology, qualitative versus quantitative, may also not be
limited in accomplishing the goal of assessing student perspective regarding what works
for them in AE via a comparative ethnic and gender analysis.
Recommendations for future research would be to replicate the study in another
Alternative Education setting. This study was conducted with a sizable sample from the
Riverside County Alternative Education Department. Riverside County Office of
Education is one of the largest district areas in the state of California. It would be
interesting to investigate whether similar results would be found in similar environments
interstate and intrastate in samples where there were increased sub-group populations. In
this study, although there was large sample size, it was predominated by Hispanic
students. The numbers of Black and White students were fractions, one-fourth and one-
93

fifth, respectively, of the sub-group sample size of Hispanics. Replicating the sample
with larger sub-groups may yield different results.
A comparison between Black and Hispanic students could also be couched in an
analysis of teacher differences. Would the same results, differences between Black and
Hispanic students, be observed when the ethnicity or gender of the teacher was factored
into the equation, if ethnicity or gender of the teacher was a construct affecting AE
setting characteristics? Future studies could investigate differences in student perception
among a multi-ethnic sample of at-risk AE students who were in classes taught by White
male teachers, White female teachers, Black male teachers, Black female teachers,
Hispanic male teachers and Hispanic female teachers. Other teacher characteristics such
as years of employment, teaching style, or ability are other factors that could be explored.

Implications for Practice
Ethnicity
So, if we were to use the AE experience to modify the traditional school setting, it
would be suggested that students identified as at-risk be given greater teacher support.
But, most importantly, these students should be provided multiple opportunities to feel as
though they are in control of what they are learning. These results seem to imply that
these students need a greater level of self-empowerment toward success. This might be
the reason why individualized curriculums which are found in the AE setting but not the
traditional setting are so important for at-risk students’ academic success. This might be
the mechanism to explain why the flexibility of AE settings proves more successful for
at-risk students than traditional school settings. It’s possible that non-conforming
94

assessments and non-competitive tests stifle the desire for success of at-risk students. For
these students, an environment in which they can feel like they have accomplished a
specific amount of work or reached a specific goal –which, according to their ability,
might be reading two pages of literature or two pages of history- might be a goal they can
set for themselves and achieve in their own manageable timeframe and end up feeling
successful, much more so than competing with 27 other students to get the highest score
on a test.
This research was conducted with an understanding that if we knew which
characteristics from the Alternative Education setting were perceived as more beneficial
from the student perspective, then maybe changes could be initiated for students
identified as at-risk while they were still in the traditional school setting. We found that
there were no differences between White and Black students or White and Hispanic
students. This could be suggesting that for students identified as at-risk in the traditional
school setting, we should not make any distinctions in how White students are serviced
compared to Black and Hispanic students. It also could be suggesting that we should
make distinctions in how Black and Hispanic at-risk students are serviced in traditional
settings. This seems contrary to Macmillan, Widaman, Balow, Hemsley, and Little’s
(1992) finding that there was a significant difference between Anglo students’ attitudes
toward school and a combined sample of Black and Chicano students. Has the research in
general, tended to lump together Black and Hispanic students, because of their shared
“minority labeling”, and in so doing compared them mostly with Whites, thereby
overlooking potentially major education differences or perceptions between them?
95

According to our results, Black students differ from Hispanic students in terms of
how they perceive a school or classroom to be organized as well as in terms of their
motivation orientation. Maybe changes could be made that would build upon these
differences which could decrease the numbers of Blacks and Hispanics who leave
traditional school settings and end up in Alternative Education settings or worse.
This study’s results showed that Black students rated task orientation comments
to a greater extent than White students and Hispanic students. Black students rated Task
Orientation items as nearest to “almost always”. Based on this, a modification would be
to ensure that Black students in traditional school settings are clear as to their goals on
each assignment every day. Many times students come to class and the class begins
without students knowing what they are there trying to achieve that particular day. They
float through the period not knowing when or if they have accomplished whatever it is
they were supposed to accomplish that day. So, since Black students have specifically
shown that this is an important experience from the AE setting, we can just transport it to
the traditional setting in an effort to increase academic achievement and decrease rates of
dropping out.
Gender
The findings showed that female students perceived their experiences higher
than boys. As discussed earlier, this may be a consequence of the specific type of school
and therefore actually underwent a different experience. The girls in this study were in a
specialized program designed to meet their unique needs. Comparatively, it would seem
that it was accomplishing the task. It is now incumbent on practitioners to ensure that AE
programs, which are mostly attended by male students, are better designed to meet the
96

specific needs of this student clientele. Community schools may not be designed to meet
the unique needs of the clientele, so much as it is designed to meet the need of where to
put forced choice students. Recommendations for stakeholders would include addressing
the differences observed in AE characteristic perspective.
Major differences were observed between genders. In fact, each subscale as well
as each AE characteristic was perceived higher by females than males. This means that
teachers, as major stakeholders, should be able to manipulate school climate
characteristics to enhance better performance for all students by trying to really meet
unique needs of their students. This was alluded to earlier via Cox’s (1999) study
suggesting that when specific students are matched to an AE program that addresses the
needs of the targeted population, greater overall effects will be observed. Classroom
organizational environment can be modified to pull greater levels of student participation
or to cater to student needs in a more productive manner and possibly via a gender-based
influence. Teacher support can definitely be a tool to promote student progress and
positive experiences. These two factors are subject to changing conditions and can be
easily influenced in positive ways by greater training, education, and professional
development.
Training, education, and professional development are issues that can be
addressed by administrators as major stakeholders. Administrators can decide whether
and how much staff development and training is conducted on-site. Administrators are
also responsible for providing coverage if teachers choose to attend conferences or pursue
education in other arenas. A large factor in making changes to the classroom
organizational environment and teacher support categories can be based on the degree to
97

which teachers are provided encouragement and a foundation for betterment by the
educational administrators at their school sites.
Along this line, it follows that school districts and administrations also need to be
supportive of teachers in their need to get continuous training in their field. Districts and
administrations should also take the forefront and require that teachers constantly gain
knowledge in their field. Research is constantly being done in the field of education, but
if teachers never return to the role of student, they won’t learn the new and improved
ways that promote even greater student learning and achievement.
The results showed that Hispanic students had the lowest perceptions of every
subscale identified. This fact may be attributable to a disconnect with the teachers who
may not provide support or an environment conducive -2 of the 3 AE setting
characteristics identified-- to their learning. This student sample, of which 64% were
Hispanic, came from 23 different teachers, only 3 of whom were Hispanic. It is possible
that with increased numbers of Hispanic teachers, Hispanic students may perceive their
experiences in school differently and to a greater degree than what was uncovered in this
study. It is recommended, then, that more Hispanic teachers are brought into these
classrooms. It is also recommended that all teachers of these students, regardless of
ethnicity or gender, be adequately trained on how to more sufficiently address the
educational needs of students who are native Spanish speakers or come from this specific
background. These recommendations, mirroring Foley and Pang’s (2006) earlier
suggestion that AE teachers be given ESL training and even Special Education training,
may enhance the educational and social development of Hispanic students so that their
perceptions of their experiences are not as low when compared to other students.
98

Earlier in this study, a brief history of AE was presented. It was demonstrated that
each offshoot within the AE literature was designed to address a specific need of students
that was not being met in the traditional setting. It may be the case that AE, although
designed to meet the need of where to put students who are removed from traditional
schools, has not been designed to meet the needs of the students it serves. The creation
and expansion of AE, with the purpose of LEA’s (local education agencies) being in
compliance with the law of mandatory education and the legal placement needs of
students removed from the traditional school setting, still under serves its students
because it has not filled the gap of what these students really need educationally, why
their needs were not being met in the setting from which they came, and what can be
done to correct these deficits. So, the success of females –rated from their perception of
greater experiences in this study, can be the necessary catalyst to more accurately address
the unique needs of students placed in AE.
Conclusion
This investigation of at-risk Alternative Education student perception of school
climate characteristics provided a new perspective on why students perform better in an
AE setting compared to traditional schools. Of the AE setting characteristics investigated,
self-efficacy was the most highly rated, regardless of student gender or ethnicity. The AE
literature and the literature on at-risk students concluded that students perform better in
these settings versus traditional school settings; however, the mechanism for why this
was the case was not fully explored.
This study sought to fill this gap. The idea was to garner the student voice to gain
a much-needed perspective as to why they perform better in AE. The main AE setting
99

characteristics were identified and utilized. They were relationships in a supportive
environment, organizational environment, and self-efficacy. Students rated their school
experiences with forty-eight specific items, half of which focused on these AE climate
characteristics identified in the literature as key for positive academic achievement.
Based on the literature, it was believed that relationships in a supportive environment
would be the most salient characteristic responsible for this change. This study found that
experiences based on the AE climate characteristic self-efficacy were more highly rated
among all students. This provides a better understanding of how and why students in
Alternative Education perform better academically than when they were in traditional
schools. The fact that students felt a greater sense of control of their learning and
accomplished their goals was the characteristic they rated highest in perception. This
might indeed be the reason why at-risk AE students perform better in AE, because it
provides a more individualized, self-paced curriculum and level of instruction, without
the competitive grading system found in traditional school. In actuality, this is
reminiscent of the main underlying current in all AE programs historically, i.e. Waldorf,
Montessori and Freedom-based Education, student freedom and choice.
Understanding this might be the key to making modifications for at-risk students
in the traditional school setting before they are pushed out or forced out. This might also
be the source for making changes that will keep Black and Hispanic students in
traditional schools and not subject to the dismal graduation rates of roughly fifty percent.
In this new age of technology and information, students are not motivated by the
same things that motivated children a decade or two ago. Getting an “F” doesn’t have the
same shame as it did years ago. Moreover, many of these students have seen people
100

without any formal or extended schooling, make it big in life. Thus their motivation to
adhere to the “go to school and get a good education so you can get a good job” line of
thinking has greatly diminished. We need to develop a more applicable system that is
more aligned with how students of today feel empowered, motivated, and in control.
With educational modifications based more solidly on self-empowerment and
accomplishment, versus competition for grades, students may be better served
academically in both the AE setting and the traditional setting.
101

REFERENCES

Aarons, D. I. (2007). Zero Tolerance Offenses Up. Scripps Newspaper Group.
Retrieved March 2, 2008, from
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2007/oct/05/zero-tolerance-offenses-up

Allen, w. (1998). The education of Black students on White college campuses:
What quality the experience. Toward Black Undergraduate Student Equality in Higher
Education. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

Anderson, S. A. (2000). How parental involvement makes a difference in reading
achievement. Reading Improvement, 37, 2, 61-86

Arnove, R. F. & Strout, T. (1980). Alternative schools for disruptive youth.
Educational Forum, 44, 453-471

Aron, L. (2006). An Overview of Alternative Education. Urban Institute

Aronson, S.R. (1995). Successful program characteristics. Alternative Learning
Environments. Retrieved December 26, 2007, from
http://www.sedl.org/policy/insights/n06/3.html

Bagby, J.H. (2007) Montessori education and practice: A review of the literature,
1996-2006. Montessori Life, 16, 1, 72-79

Bailey, S.M. (1993). The current status of gender equity research in American
schools. Educational Psychologist, 24, 4, 321-339

Bain, H.P., Lintz, N., & Word, E. (1989). A study of fifty effective teachers
whose class average gain scores ranked in the top 15% of each of four school types in
Project STAR. Retrieved 3/18/07 http://www.heros-inc.org/eff-tchr.pdf

Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (2003). Saving our students: Saving our schools : 50
Proven strategies for revitalizing at-risk students and low-performing schools. Thousand
Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.

Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (2001). Hope fulfilled for at-risk and violent youth:
K-12 programs that work. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (1997a). How to create alternative, magnet and
charter schools that work. Bloomington: National Education Service.

Barr, R.D., & Parrett, W.H. (1995). Hope at Last for At-Risk Youth. Allyn &
Bacon. Needham Heights, MA

102

Beem, E.A. (2009) The Waldorf Way. Retrieved March 14, 2009 from
http://www.waldorfschoolofcapecod.org/news-bglobe-waldorf-way.htm

Black, B.M. (2007). Parental faith practice influence on adolescent faith practice
formation. Retrieved March 23, 2009 from
http://scots.covenant.edu/faculty/phorton/EDU620/SU07/volume7.pdf

Boss, S. (1998) Learning from the margins: The lessons of Alternative Schools.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from
http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/summer_98/article2.html

Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary
procedures and the production of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493-507

Bowen, G.L., Rose, R.A., Powers, J.D., & Glennie, E. (2008). Changes in the
social environment and the school success of middle school students. Retrieved July 3,
2008 from http://www.schoolsuccessprofile.org/publications/socialenvironment.pdf

Britt, P., Thomas, C., Blackbourn, J.M., Blackbourn, R., Papason, B., Tyler, J.L.,
& Williams, F.K. (2005). Listen to the children: Students at risk for academic failure.
National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journals Electronic, 19, 3e, 2005-2006

Brown, S.W., Johnson, P. R., Ioannou, A., & Maneggia, D. (2006). The attributes
of excellent teachers: Views from practicing teachers. Retrieved 3/18/2007 from
http://www.tne.uconn.edu/presentations/great%20teachersAPS2006%20revised%20cols.
pdf

Bridgeland, J.M., Dilulio, J.J., & Morison, K.B. (2006). The silent epidemic:
Perspectives of high school dropouts. A report by Civic Enterprises, in association with
Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

CDE. (2008). Zero Tolerance. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/zerotolerance.asp

Caruba, A. (1991). Illiterature America. Retrieved Dec.2, 2007, from
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0201illiterateamerica.htm

Castleberry, S.E., & Enger, J.M. (1998). Alternative school students’ concept of
success. NASSP Bulletin, December, 105-111

Children's Defense Fund. (1975). School Suspensions: Are They Helping
Children? Washington Research Project. Cambridge, Mass.

Clifton, R.A., Hryniuk, S., Parsonson, K., & Perry, R.P. (1986). Effects of
ethnicity and sex on teachers’ expectations of junior high school students. Sociology of
Education, 59, 58-66
103

Colorado Children’s Campaign. (2007) The High Cost of Not Graduating High
School. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeadult/download/pdf/HighCost.pdf

Cook-Sather,A. (2002). ‘A teacher should be…’. When the answer is the
question. Knowledge Quest, 30, 5, 12-15

Cox, S. M. (1999). An assessment of an alternative education program for at-risk
delinquent youth. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 3, 323-336

Cox, S. M., Davidson, W.S., & Bynum, T.S. (1995). A meta-analytic assessment
of delinquency-related outcomes of alternative education programs. Crime &
Delinquency, 41, 2, 219-234

Crain, W.C. (1985). Theories of Development. Retrieved March 12, 2009 from
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M.K., & Elder, G.H. (2004). School size and the
interpersonal side of Education: An examination of race/ethnicity and organizational
context. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 5, 1259-1274

Cushman, K. (1998). Democracy and equity: CES’s tenth common principle.
Horace, 14, 3, Retrieved Dec. 3, 2007, from
http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/114

De la Ossa, P. (2005). “Hear My Voice” : Alternative High School Students’
Perceptions and Implications for School Change. American Secondary Education, 34, 1,
24-39

De la Rosa, D.A. (1998). Why alternative education works. High School Journal,
4, 1, 14-24

Denti, L. & Guerin, G. (1999). Alternative education support for youth at-risk.
Clearing House, 73, 2, 76-78

Dorman, J. P. (2003). Relationship between school and classroom environment
and teacher burnout: A linear structural relations analysis. Social Psychology of
Education, 6, 107-127

ECS. Education Commission of the States. (2006). Helping state leaders shape
education policy. Alternative Education, http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueID=10

ECS. Education Commission of the States (2004). The Progress of Education
Reform 2004: Hispanic Achievement, 6, 3, 1-6 Retrieved March 15, 2009 from
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/53/97/5397.pdf
104

Education Atlas. (2006). Value of Higher Education. Retrieved December 14,
2007, from
http://www.educationatlas.com/value-of-higher-education.html

Education Data Partnership (2009). Ed-Data. Fiscal, Demographic, and
Performance Data on California’s K-12 Schools. Retrieved February 8, 2009 from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp

Elliot, W. (2007). Specifying children’s educational expectations: The potential
impact of institutions. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from
http://gwbweb.wustl.edu/csd/publications/2007/wpo7-17.pdf

Ellis, K. (2007). Literacy and national reading statistics, teaching reading:
Educational cyberplayground. Retrieved Dec. 2, 2007, from
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Literacy/stats.asp

Farrell, E., Peguero, G., Lindsy, R., & White, R. (1998). Giving voice to high
school students: Pressure and boredom, ya know what I’m sayin? American Educational
Research Journal, 25, 4, 489-502

Farrington, D.P. (2000). Explaining and preventing crime: The globalization of
knowledge. Criminology, 38, 1, 1-24

Farris-Berg, K., & Schroeder, J. (2003). Alternative-education programs: The
“Quiet Giant” in Minnesota public education. Retrieved March 18, 2008 from
http://www.educationevolving.org/pdf.alternatives.pdf

Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change . Journal of Educational
Change, 2, 3, Summer, 123-141

Fine, M. (1986). Why Urban Adolescents Drop into and out of Public High
School. Teachers College Record, Spring, 393-409.

Fleming, C.B., Haggerty, K.P., Catalano, R.F., Harachi, T.W., Mazza, J.J., &
Gruman, D.H. (2005). Do social and behavioral characteristics targeted by preventive
interventions predict standardized test scores and grades? Journal of School Health, 75,
342-349

Foley, R. & Pang, L.S. (2006). Alternative education programs: program and
student characteristics. High School Journal, 89, 3, 10-21

Foley, R. & Pang, LS. (2004). Demographics of Alternative Education Programs.
Alternative Education Forum, 12, 4, 35-42

105

Fowler, F. (1993). Survey Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Frankart, A. (2000). Fiscal note and local impact statement. Retrieved December
14, 2007, from http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/123ga/fiscalnotes/123ga/SB0115EN.HTM

Fraser, B.J. (2002). Learning environments research: yesterday, today, and
tomorrow. In S.C. Goh & M.S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning
environments: an international perspective (pp.1-27). Singapore: World Scientific
Publishers

Fraser, B.J., Fisher, D.L., & McRobbie, C.J. (1996). Development, validation and
use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York, USA

Frymier, J., & Gansneder, B. (1989). The Phi Delta Kappa study of students at
risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 2, 142-146.

Gatto, J.T. (2003). The Underground History of American Education. New York,
NY: The Odysseus Group.

Gibson, M. A., Gandara, P., & Koyajma, J. P. (2004). School Connections: U.S.
Mexican Youth Peers and School Achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press

Gill, J. (1992). Is single sex schooling the answer to the equity equation?
Perspectives, March 1992

Gold, M. (1995). Charting a course: Promise and prospects for alternative
schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavior Problems, 3(4), 8-11.

Gold, M., & Mann, D. (1984). Expelled to a friendlier place: A study of effective
alternative schools. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Gottfredson, D. (1986). Using the Effective School Battery in school
improvement and effective schools programs. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2f/66/cc
.pdf

Gottfredson, D. (1987). An evaluation of organization development approach to
reducing school disorder. Evaluation Review, 11, 739-763

Gray, P., & Chanoff, D. (1986) Democratic schooling: What happens to young
people who have charge of their own education? American Journal of Education, 94, 2,
182-213 Referenced online Freedom-Based Education March 14, 2009

106

Greene, J.P. & Winters, M.A. (2005). The effect of residential school choice on
public high school graduation rates. New York, NY: Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research. Retrieved December 26, 2007, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2
7/f5/d7.pdf

Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. (1999). Family discourse, organizational
embeddedness, and local enactment. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 1, 66-81

IDE Indiana Department of Education (2006). Alternative Education Programs.
http://www.doe.state.in.us/alted/altedlinkpg.html

Hallinan, M.T. (1996). Race effects on students’ track mobility in high school.
Social Psychology of Education, 1, 1, 1-24

Hansen, A.L. (2005). Hispanic student achievement. Retrieved March 15, 2009
from http://www.principalspartnership.com/success.pdf

Harlow, C.W. (2003). Educational and correctional populations. Retrieved
December 14, 2007, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ecp.txt

Hasazi, S.B., Proulx, R., Hess, K., MacKimon, C., Morgan, P., Needham, B., &
O’Regan, B. (2001). Report on Alternative Education Schools / Programs in Vermont.

Hosley, N.S. (2003). Survey and analysis of Alternative Education Programs. The
Center for Rural Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania General Assembly

Ingersoll, G.M. (1996). Resiliency, Teacher Talk, 2, 2,
http://education.indiana.edu/cas/tt/v2i2/resiliency.html

Invernizzi, M., Rosemary, C., Juel, C., & Richards, H.C. (1997). At-risk readers
and community volunteers: A 3-year perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 227-
300

Johnston, P.H., & Nichols, J. (1995). Voices we want to hear and voices we don’t.
Theory into Practice, 34, 2, 94-100

Katsiyannis, A., & Williams, B. (1998). A national survey of state initiatives on
alternative education. Remedial and Special Education,19, 5, 276-284

Katz, L. (2007). The importance of investing in literacy. Children’s Literacy
Initiative. Retrieved Dec. 3, 2007 from, http://www.cliontheweb.org/investing1.html

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

107

Kim, H-B., Fisher, D.L., & Fraser, B.J. (2000). Classroom environment and
teacher interpersonal behavior in secondary science classes in Korea. Evaluation and
Research in Education, 14, 1, 3-22

Kochhar-Bryant, C.A., & Lacey, R. (2005). Alternative education as quality
choice for youth: Preparing educators for effective programs. Paper Presented at the
National Conference of the Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence.
Retrieved December 15, 2007, from http://gwired.gwu.edu/hamfish/merlin-
cgi/p/downloadFile/d/16936/n/off/other/1/name/Kochhar-BryantandLacey9504Paperpdf/

Koliba, C.J. (2003). Generating social capital in schools through service learning.
Academic Exchange Quarterly,7, 89-107

Kroeger, S., Burton, C., Comarata, A., Combs, C., Hamm, C., Hopkins, R., &
Kouche, B. (2004). Student voice and critical reflection: Helping students at risk.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 36, 3, 50-57.

Krashen, S. (1999). Bilingual education: Arguments for and (bogus) arguments
against. Paper presented at Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and
Linguistics. Washington, D.C. Retrieved Dec. 2, 2007, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/Krashen3.htm

Lan, W., & Lanthier, R. (2003). Changes in students’ academic performance and
perceptions of school and self before dropping out of schools. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 8, 3, 309-322

Lange, C.M., & Lehr, C.A. (2003). Alternative schools serving students with and
without disabilities: What are the current issues and challenges? Preventing School
Failure, 4, 1, 56-71

LeBlanc, H.P., & Honeycutt, J.M. (1993). Student perceptions of rules for
classroom interaction: The effects of high school drop-out rates, gender and race.
Retrieved July 5, 2008 from http://communication.utsa.edu/leblanc/articles/art01.pdf

Lee, V.E., & Burkam (2000) Dropouts in America: How severe is the problem?
What do we know about intervention and prevention?” Retrieved July 5, 2008 from
http://inpathways.net/dropping_out.pdf

Lehr, C.A., Lanners, E.J., & Lange, C.M. (2003). Alterantive schools: Policy and
legislation across the United States. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from
http://ici.umn.edu/alternativeschools/publications/Legislative_Report.pdf

Lehr, C.A., Moreau, R.A., Lange, C.M., & Lanners, E.J. (2004). Alternative
Schools: Findings from a national survey of the states. Retrieved March 24, 2009 from
http://ici.umn.edu/alternativeschools/publications/alt_schools_report2.pdf

108

Lenroot, R.K., Gogtay, N., Greenstein, D.K., Wells, E.M., Wallace, G.L., Clasen,
L.S., Blumenthal, J.D., Lerch, J., Zijdenbos, A.P., Evans, A.C., Thompson, P.M., &
Giedd, J.N. (2007). Sexual dimorphism of brain developmental trajectories during
childhood and adolescence. NeruoImage, 36, 1065-1073

Lillard, A. & Else-Quest, N. (2006). The early years: Evaluating Montessori
education. Science, 313, 1893-1894

Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital: A theory of social structure and action.
Cambridge University Press: New York, NY

MDOE, (2007). Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved March 23, 2009,
from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Definition_of_Alt_70316_7._Ed.pdf

MacMillan, D.L., Widaman, K.F., Balow, I.H., Hemsley, R.E., & Little, T.D.
(1992). Differences in adolescent school attitude as a function of academic level,
ethnicity, and gender. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 39-50

Markward, M., McMillan, L., Markward, N. (2003). Social support among youth.
Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 7, 571-587

Martin, E.J., Sugai, G.M., & Tobin, T.J. (2002). Current information on dropout
prevention: Ideas from practitioners and the literature. Preventing School Failure, 8, 2,
101-119

McCall, H.J. (2003). When successful alternative students “disengage” from
regular school. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 4, 3, 2-8

McPartland, J. M., & Slavin, R. E. (1990). Policy perspectives: Increasing
achievement of at-risk students at each grade level. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Education

Millard, E. (1993). Differently literate: Gender identity and the construction of the
developing reader. Gender and Education, 9, 1, 31-48

Miller, N.J. (2008). Questionnaires: The Handbook of Economic Lectures.
Retrieved March 25, 2008, from
http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook/printable/questionnaires_v5.pdf

Mitra, D.L. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student-teacher
relationships. McGill Journal of Education, Spring 2003

Mintz, J. (1994). The Handbook of Alternative Education. Macmillan Publishing
Company: New York, NY

109

Moskowitz, E. (2006). Inside prison, minds expand. Retrieved December 14,
2007, from
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060219/REPOSITORY/6
02190384/1031

Mullis, I.V.S., Dossey, J.A., Owen, E.H., & Phillips, G.W. (1993). NAEP 1992
Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States. Washington, DC: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

National Institute for Literacy, (2008). Correctional Education Facts. Retrieved
February 2, 2008, from http://www.nifl.gov/hifl/facts/correctional.html

National Commission on Excellence. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform.

Nelson, C.M., Rutherford, R.B., & Wolford, B.I. (Eds.). (1987). Special education
in the criminal justice system. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company

Network Theory and Analysis. (2007). Retrieved December 16, 2007, from
http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Communication
%20and%20Information%20Technology/Network%20Theory%20and%20analysi
s_also_within_organizations.doc/

Nichols, J., & Utesch, W. (1998). An alternative learning program: Effects on
student motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Education Research, 91, 5, 272-279

Norlinger, C. (2007). Official Fall, 2007, Membership Data, Omaha Public
Schools. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from
http://www.ketv.com/download/2007/1113/14585592.pdf

Ogbu, J.U. (1983). Minority status and schooling in plural societies. Comparative
Education Review, 27, 2, 168-190

OJJDP. (2004). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model
Programs Guide. Retrieved December 26, 2007, from
http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/alternative_school.htm

Oregon Department of Education. (2002). Student Voices: Why School Works for
Alternative High School Students. Retrieved March 2, 2009
www.ode.state.or.us/date/reportcard/whyschworks.pdf

Paglin, C. & Fager, J. (1997). Alternative schools: Approaches for students at
risk. Retrieved December 26, 2007, from http://www.nwrel.org/request/sept97

Potts, K., & Njie, B. (2003). Zero tolerance in Tennessee schools: An update.
Office of Education Accountability, Comptroller of Treasury, August 2003.
110

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, 1, 11-17

Raywid, M.A. (1994). Alternative schools: The state of the art. Educational
Leadership, 52, 1, 26-31

Raywid, M.A. (1983). Schools of choice: Their current nature and prospects. Phi
Delta Kappan, 64, 684-688

Reed, D., Combs, J., Harris, A.J., Hines, M.T., Johnson, S., Parker, C.H., &
Robles-Pina, R. (2007). Gender equity for at-risk students. 1,1, 41-64

Richart, D., Brooks, K., & Soler, M. (2007). Unintended consequences: The
impact of “Zero Tolerance” and other exclusionary policies on Kentucky students.
Retrieved 12/2/7 from
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/kentucky/kentucky.html

Riessman, H. (1993) Modern Ethnography. Helms Publishing, Cambden, NJ.

Rizzo, C.J., Daley, S.E., Gunderson, B.H. (2006). Interpersonal sensitivity,
romantic stress, and the prediction of depression: a study of inner-city, minority
adolescent girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Retrieved March 22,2009 from
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30912029_ITM

RCOE: Riverside County Office of Education, (2008). Retrieved March 25, 2008,
from http://www.rcoe.us/studentPrograms/alternativeEd.html

Rozycki, E. G. (2004). At-risk students: What exactly is the threat? How
imminent is it? Educational Horizons, 82, 3, 174-179

Roderick, M. (1995). Grade retention and school dropout: Policy debate and
research questions. Phi Delta Kappan Research Bulletin, 15, 1-6.

Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Ruzzi, B.B., & Kraemer, J. (2006). Academic programs in alternative education:
An overview. National Center on Education and the Economy. Retrieved 3/18/07
http://www.doleta.gov/youth_services/pdf/AE_Overview_Text.pdf

Sachs, S. K. (2004). Evaluation of teacher attributes as predictors of success in
urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 2, 177-187

111

Sands, D.I., Guzman, L., Stephens, L., & Boggs, A. (2007). Including student
voices in school reform: Students speak out. Journal of Latinos and Education, 6, 4,
323-345

Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2001). Schools and suspensions: Self-reported
crime and the growing use of suspensions. The Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved Dec.2,
2007, from https://www.justicepolicy.org/downloads/sss/pdf

Sekayi, D.N.R. (2001). Intellectual indignation: Getting at the roots of student
resistance in an alternative high school program. Education, 122, 414-422.

Shader, M. (2007). Risk factors for delinquency. Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved Dec. 3, 2007 from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/frd030127.pdf

Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies
on retention. London: Falmer Press.

Sherry, M. (2007). Post-colonising disability. Intersecting gender and disability
perspectives in rethinking postcolonial identities. Wagadu, 4, 10-22

Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming
educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31, 7, 15–21.

Skiba, R.J. (2000) Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An analysis of school
disciplinary practice. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from
http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ztze.pdf

Skiba, R J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A.B., Feggins-Azziz, L.R., &
Chung, C. (2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in
special education? Journal of Special Education, 39, 3, 130-144

Soo Hoo, S. (1993). Students as partners in research and restructuring schools.
The Educational Forum, 57, Summer, 386-393 SoundOut. (2007). Retrieved December
25, 2007, from www.soundout.org/edreform.html

Spender, D. (1982). Invisible Women. London: The Women’s Press

Sperling, M.B. & Berman, W.H. (1994). Attachment in adults: Clinical and
developmental perspectives. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1995). Social capital and the social
reproduction of inequality: The formation of informational networks among Mexican-
origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 2, 116-135.

112

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1,
1-40

Stanton-Salazar, R.D., & Spina, S.U. (2005). Adolescent peer networks as a
context for social and emotional support. Youth & Society, 36, 4, 379-417

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2001). Manufacturing Hope and Despair: The School and
Kin Support Networks of U.S.-Mexican Youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stevenson, R.B., & Ellsworth, J. (1993). Dropouts and the silencing of critical
voices. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in
United States schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press

TEA. Texas Education Agency. (2007). Policy research: Disciplinary alternative
education program practices. Report #17, August 2007. Retrieved Dec. 3, 2007 from,
http:// www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/prr17.pdf

Tennent, L., Farrell, A., Tayler, C. (2008) Social capital and sense of community:
What do they mean for young children’s success at school? Retrieved February 3, 2008
from www.aare.edu.au/05pap/ten05115.pdf

United Way of Greater Los Angeles. (2007). Retrieved December 25, 2007, from
http://www.unitedwayla.org/getinformed/rr/socialreports/Pages/LiteracyReport.as
px

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Hispanic Heritage Month 2001: Sept. 15-Oct. 15.
Retrieved March 2, 2008, from
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01fff13.html

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling: U.S. Mexican Youth and the
Politics of Caring. New York: State University of New York.

Virginia Board of Education. (2004). Alternative Education Regional Alternative
Education Projects. http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/OCP/regalt.html

Witt, S.D. (2001). The influence of school and reading materials on children’s
gender role socialization: An overview of literature. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from
https://gozips.uakron.edu/~susn8/school.htm

Woods, P. (1986). Inside Schools. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, OX

Young, T. (1990). Public alternative education: Options and choice for today’s
schools. New York: Teacher College Press.

113

Zandveliet, D.B., & Fraser, B.J. (1998). The physical and psychosocial
environment associated with classrooms using new information technologies. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Diego.

114

APPENDIX A:
The WIHIC Survey

115

116

APPENDIX B:
Informed Consent

117

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study sought to examine student perspectives of school characteristics within an Alternative Education setting. Key characteristics of Alternative Education include social connections or supportive relationships, self-efficacy or individuality, and organizational environment. Female and male students of various ethnic groups attending a county community school were surveyed with the elementary version of the What is Happening in this Classroom instrument. Students rated their perceptions of their experiences via a Likert scale. Significant differences were observed on all school characteristics between female and male students. Differences were also observed between ethnic groups on school characteristics but only significantly between Black and Hispanic students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?

PDF

Differentiated motivations of preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession in Hawai‘i

PDF

Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

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

PDF

A study of student affairs administration professional preparation in Chinese higher education

PDF

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

PDF

Kū i ke ao: Hawaiian cultural identity and student progress at Kamehameha Elementary School

PDF

Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree

PDF

Innovative social support systems and the recruitment and retention of international students in U.S. higher education

PDF

An awareness of local identity: influence of Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific (HAP) issues course at Kapi‘olani Community College

PDF

Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Cultural centers and students: are the diversity needs of students being met?

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

How religious engagement shapes the college experience of African American Christian males at a predominantly White institution: a phenomenlogical approach

PDF

From cultural roots to worldview: Cultural connectedness of teachers for native Hawaiian students

PDF

Examining the impact of continuation high schools on students' self-efficacy

Asset Metadata

Creator DuCloux, Kelli Eileen (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Curriculum

Degree Conferral Date 2009-05

Publication Date 05/12/2009

Defense Date 03/30/2009

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

Tag alternative education,alternative education program,at-risk,at-risk students,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational environment,self-efficacy,social connections,student perspective,supportive relationships

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Cole, Darnell (committee member), Huey, Stanley J., Jr. (committee member)

Creator Email kelli_ducloux@yahoo.com,kelliducloux1@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2248

Unique identifier UC1201860

Identifier etd-CLOUX-2777 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-240172 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2248 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CLOUX-2777.pdf

Dmrecord 240172

Document Type Dissertation

Rights DuCloux, Kelli Eileen

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