PLACEMENT OF YOUTH IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROIIRAMS

Considerations for the Placement of Youth With EBD in AlternativeEducation Programs ;

TRENT ATKINS AND JA.MIE BARTUSKA, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA

A lternative educationprograms (also calledalternative schools) first

appeared on the American landscapein the 1960s (Raywid, 1999). Despitethe proliferation of these programs, ageneric description of whatconstitutes an alternative educationprogram, historically, has beenelusive. Smith (1974) defined analternative school as any school thatprovides alternative learningexperiences beyond those providedby the traditional schools within itscommunity and one that is availableto all students at no additional cost.By Smith's definition, there aremultitudes of examples in the UnitedStates (e.g., school district-sponsoredprograms, charter schools, juveniledetention educational programs, andadult education). However, at thispoint in time, most alternativeeducation programs have the generalcriteria of serving youth who are atrisk of school failure, includingstudents with disabilities (Unruh,Bullis, Todis, Waintrup, & Atkins,2004). Although alternative educationprograms exist in both rural andurban areas, research documentingthe effectiveness of the programs isscant.

In the past decade, the number ofalternative education programs hassignificantly increased. Researchshows that there are approximately11,000 public alternative educationprograms in the nation (Katsiyannis& Williams, 1998; Kleiner, Porch, &Farris, 2002). The option of placing astudent who is perceived as at risk tofail in school or who is violent (amore recent concern due to schoolshootings and an increase in concernover school violence) into a separateprogram could be an appealing

option for school systems andstudents. For students, an alternativeschool could be a unique way ofobtaining an education. For schoolsystems, alternative educationprograms could serve as a safety netto protect school systems fromviolence, assist in meeting stateproficiency standards, and recoverlost revenue due to early schoolleavers.

Fitzsimons-Lovett (2001) suggeststhat two acts of Congress expandedthe mission and the nLimber of youthsserved in alternative educationprograms: (a) the Gun Free SchoolsAct of 1994 and (b) the 1997amendments to the hidividual withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA).The Gun Free Schools Act stated thatstudents who brought weapons toschool could be expelled from theschool or sent to an alternative settingfor at least 1 year. In addition, the1997 amendments to IDEA expandedthe potential role of alternativeeducation programs by mandatingthat placement in an "appropriateinterim alternative setting" for up to45 school days could be part of astudent's individual educationprogram (IEP). An IFP team wouldhave to approve the appropriatenessof such a placement. If a student onan IEP is placed in an alternativeschool, specialized educationalservices are to be continued. Thesetwo legislative acts have expandedthe role of alternative educationprograms and how they servestudents with disabilities.

Alternative education programsare being used to serve a wide rangeof students in all areas of the country.Recent research shows that youthwith disabilities make upapproximately one third of tlie school

populations (Unruh, Bullis, Todis,Waintrup, & Atkins, 2004). Researchalso shows that the service deliverymodels for youth with disabilities inrural areas are quite different fromschools in urban areas (Atkins, Bullis,& Todis, 2005). Although there isvirtually no evidence on theeffectiveness of alternative educationprograms, at least one study hasshown that students perceivethemselves as doing better in theseprograms (Atkins, Hohnstein &Roche, 2008). More research on theeffectiveness of these programs forstudents with and without disabilitiesis greatly needed.

The purpose of this article isthreefold: (a) to describe thecharacteristics of a small group ofyouth with disabilities before andduring their attendance at analternative education program, (b) todescribe several characteristics of thealternative education programs theyattend, and (c) to providerecommendations for parents andpractitioners to consider whendeciding if an alternative educationprogram is an appropriate placementfor students with emotional andbehavioral disorders (EBD) or otherdisabilities.

Brief Description of the Studyand Methods

This study was conducted inOregon as part of a directed researchproject through the U.S. Departmentof Education's Office of SpecialEducation Programs. For the studydescribed here, we identified threeprograms to take part in this project.The programs were selected based onevidence that they served youth withdisabilities and they had some type of

1 4 B K Y o N D B E H A \' I O R

PUCEMENT OF YoUTH IN Al.rERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

collaborative relationship with thejuvenile justice system. From thesethree programs, we asked staffmembers to identify possibleparticipants. We collected qualitativedata through interviews andobservations. Interviews wereconducted with staff, students, andparents, and we collected observationdata in the form of field notes. As isrectimmended with qualitativeresearch, data analysis begansimultaneously with data collectionand continued throughout the year-long study.

To establish the context, weconducted a cross-case analysis ofthese three alternative educationprograms to obtain rich and detailedinformation that documented anddescribed how alternative educationprograms serve youth with andwithout disabilities on probation. Oneof these programs was private andlocated in a suburban environment.The other two were public schoolprograms; one was located in a ruralenvironment and the other in anurban environment. The participantsfor this study included (a) male {fi =5) and female (;/ ^ 2) youth withdisabilities who were involved in thejuvenile justice system, their familymembers, probation officers, andprogram staff members and (b) male{¡1 = 5) and female (n = 4) youthwithout disabilities involved in thejuvenile justice system, their parents,¡u\'enile justice officials, and staffmembers of the programs. A total of16 youth took part in the study, andmore than 50 interviews wereconducted with the variousparticipants. Observations took placeuntil there was saturation of the data(i.e., nothing new was beingobserved).

For this article, only studentswith disabilities are discussed. First,we provide a brief overview of theprogrammatic characteristics of theprograms (for more detail, see Atkinset al., 2005), followed by descriptionsof each of the programs and detailsabout the students with disabilitieswho attended those respective

programs. It is important to note thatthe special education label for most ofthese students was unclear. Morespecifically, a key finding of thelarger study was that there was littleto no focus on the lEP. In two cases(with the exception of the privateschool), even if the students wereconsidered to be disabled, a currentIEP could not be produced for theresearchers. We do know that each ofthe students had at one point in timebeen identified as EBD and/orlearning disabled. Whether thestudents had been identified as EBDor not, because of their involvementwith the juvenile justice system, itwas clear that behavior-relatedproblems were a reason theyattended the alternative educationprogram. Table 1 describes each of theyouth with disabilities followed by adescription of the results of thisstudy.

Descriptions of the Programs andStudents With Disabilities

In this section, we describe theprograms and each of the studentswith disabilities who attended thoseprograms. A progress summary ofeach of the students can be found inTable 2.

Program 1: The TrainEducation Ce?iter. The Train EducationCenter (TEC) was operated by thelocal educational service district(ESD). The head teacher. Lance, alsoserved as program administrator. Thestaff at TEC consisted of Lance, whowas a certified teacher in socialstudies, and four vocational trainers.The THC was located in an olderoffice building in a small rural town.It was the only alternative program intown. The school was open Mondaythrough Thursday, 7:30 AM to 5:00PM. Students 18 years or older couldsmoke during breaks.

The TEC had its own curriculum.All students worked on individualassignments from packets andtextbooks in one large room where notraditional instruction was provided.Students received credits forcompleting predetermined portions

of books or packets. The primaryfocus was graduating from theprogram.

The TEC contracted with localdistricts for 80% of all students'average daily maintenance (ADM).More specifically, the TEC served anystudent—regardless of disability,pregnancy, or parenting status—for areduced amount of funding that thelocal school district received. Inessence, the TEC provided adiscounted education, and the localschool districts retained a portion ofthe ADM they received for thestudents.

Although the TEC did notprovide a certified special educationteacher, there were some specialeducation services offered by thelocal school. No related services werehoused in the program. Studentsworked at their individual pace withassistance when needed. Lancefacilitated students in connecting tocommunity-related services in thelocal area. The county probationoffice was three blocks from theschool. One probation officer wasinvolved with the youth whoattended the TEC. This close-knitrelationship between the school andjuvenile justice seemed to beindicative of the rural community.

Description of student withdisabilities who attended the TEC. Only1 student with a disability from TECtook part in this study. Ed was a 17-year-old boy on an IEP. He was firstplaced on probation at age 10 andincarcerated for 1 month at age 15 forassault. He was referred to the TECafter having repeated behavioralissues at the local high school. Ed'sgoal was to graduate with a diplomafrom the ESD. He turned 18 withinhis tenure at the program and hadattended the TEC less often by theend of the year. Lance said that hedoubted that he would graduate orthat he had the ability to pass theCED.

Program 2: Creekside School andCareer Center. The Creekside Schooland Career Center (CSCC) wasoperated by Microview, a large

I N T i{ R 2 0 1 0 1 5

PUCEMENT OF YoUTH IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCÍA ' I ION PROGRAMS

I -

LU

F

,0

0w•ÖUl

I0c

^o*z

il^ oo i:

I- a.

O

-o

Oi "Oc c! ÜH 1c

ro B t 3S '̂ io o ,i£

£ i 'E

>ro

X

2 tu

T3Oi

5o

T3

U

CO

•4=(0

X)O

D,

C

OJu(D

301 ro

< ro

u i-7j [-̂ rotu --H c

'ro tu

ÛC O

a

C E - ä.— > > OJ ,Q _C X 4ÍW 9- 2 ojCû E c T3< ^ ^ u

s t OJ

ÛwCQ<

ro

cOJ

U

ro

c cC 3

"ca,

>fiJI>5

OJ - n f'

•ocro

i <ro

§ô SÖo ro c-S >,"a; ¿ §^ c s

"U p, QJ

-*-' _ O

'S c

il••5i- 7; "D

•G x: :Î" £ ;;LH ; ^ S ^¿ S' " ' OJ OJ ' -S

t* "= C ra a.ro g OJ fg c

< ro lu ¿ S

2l

o

1^

> ,o

fO

dro

paj ro

T3OJ

ro iS

Oi O

ä ^ tjo f¡ Í.

o ' ro •£CDOJ b

ç *- £"> _̂ o-J ro 2

ÛwO

ero

.So

-.eu r

c o.

T3•a

2 Ct: ro

sic ±:m ro

OJM!

ro c

ro '•"

o

"S

I

-a

Oj-a

o. ro

o m

"5 s^'J^ 9 ro-C ^ _^ inc T̂ o

S dxi

-a^1

•X ^

-d'àc ro•^ S

"O ro&'̂ •-

^ £o c

XI >,o c t-bO l ; OJro CLX)

< § £

:3 c-

u

01 1^^ .Si

0E o

O OJ

OJ C ÜCÛ ro ro

••- X J

01-o

Olc

C'A. ^ o

oro XOJ roC P >

OJ ro> 3

1 6 B E Y O N D B K H A V I O K

PLACEMENT OF YOUTH IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Table 2 Posmvn OR NEOATIVE PROGRESS OF YOIITH Wmi

Target by ProgramCompletion

GoalPositive orNegative Brief Description

Irani lidiicdtion CenterEd

Creekside School andJasonSkye

Cina

Vision High SchoolJanelleJimJohnson

Typical diploma

Career CenterComplete ABEDTypical diploma

GED

Typical diplomaTypical diplomaTypical diploma

Positive

PositivePositive

Positive /nega tive

PositiveNegativeNegative

Attended school less but still attended*

Completed ABED and released from probationSome attendance problems but still attended, not placed on

probationPassed practice test, stopped attending, had not taken GED, was

not placed on probation

Was incarcerated for PV but returned to VHS upon releaseExpelled from VHS remained on probationReincarcerated

nonprofit organization. CSCCemployed a noncertifiedadministrator to run the alternativeeducation program. Cate, theadministrator, had 20 years of servicewith Microview. The staff at CSCCconsisted of certified and noncertifiedteachers who served as casemanagers. Including four teacherswho also served as supervisors. TheCSCC negotiated contracts withdistricts and operated with a similarfunding mechanism as the TEC.However, the school did receivedifferent amounts of funding fordifferent populations (e.g., pregnantand parenting teens). They alsoreceived monies through fee-for-service from a student workprogram.

The CSCC was located in a newerhuilding across from a stateuniversity. There were more than 20alternative education programs in thearea. Students could attend full- orhalf-day programs. Half-day studentswere required to attend Mondaythrough Thursday. Fridays werereserved for students to make up anymissed days. Students werepermitted to leave campus, smoke,and return.

Attempts were made to aligntheir curriculum to state and localdistricts. Students were offeredmultiple courses and packet work.

Teachers taught in specific subjectareas and shared classrooms.Students received credits for passinga class or completing predeterminedportions of packets. The CSCCoffered multiple graduation options,which included a diploma fromCSCC, a GED, or the adult basiceducation diploma (ABED). TheABED—a completion documentindicating the completion of 10th-grade coursework—appears to beunique to the state where this studytook place. The ABED was a concernfor some staff members who believedit gave students a false sense ofaccomplishment.

The CSCC program provides acertified special education teacherand supervisor. Multiple, nearlycomprehensive services were offeredto students at various locationsthrough Microview. Microviewoperated multiple programs for theDepartment of Youth Services (DYS).Many of the students were courtappointed to various counselingprograms. Attending these programsprevented them from advancingfurther into the juvenile justicesystem. Supervisors from DYSreferred to the situation as a"monopoly." Students and staffreported that the probation officer's(PO's) involvement with the studentsat school varied. For instance, some

POs came to the school often whereasothers rarely came.

Description of students withdisabilities loho attended CSCC. Jasonwas a 21-year-old man on an IEP. Hewas first involved with police andplaced on probation at age 9. Afterbeing homeless, Jason wasincarcerated at age 14. He was on andoff probation until he turned 21. Atthe age of 16, Jason left foster care,where he attended school, worked,and played sports. Eventually, Jasonreturned to his mother's care, wherehe attended high school briefly,dropped out of the public school, andentered CSCC at age 20. Jasonobtained his goal by receiving hisABED in early spring. Jason workedfor an employment agency only afterbeing laid off from a restaurant job.The latest report suggests he wasliving with his mother and had nofurther incidents with the police.

Skye was a 16-year-old boy on anIEP. At age 15, he was cited for twominor in possession (MIP) offenses ata local high school. Once sentenced,the court suspended his driver'slicense for 1 year with the possibilityof a reduction to 6 months uponcompletion of a drug and alcoholprogram. Skye was expelled fromschool for the MIPs and subsequentlyenrolled in CSCC. His goal was toearn a typical high school diploma

W I N T E R 20 10 1 7

PLACEMENT OF YOUTH IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCIATION PROGRAMS

from CSCC or the local high school.He had attendance problemsthroughout the year in the YouthCorps and had no further legalinfractions.

Gina was a 16-year-old girl on anIEP. She has had multiple MIPs andother minor charges against her. Inthe past, Gina attended two otheralternative education programsbefore coming to CSCC. She wascontacted by a truant officer andencouraged to enroll in an alternativeeducation program. Her goal was toearn her GED. She passed the GEDpractice test withoutaccommodations and then stoppedattending CSCC. From the last reportreceived, Gina had not taken the GEDtest, lived on her own, and wasemployed at a retail store. Accordingto Gina, she could not afford to takethe GED, and she was not able toprovide the appropriatedocumentation to receive disability-related accommodations. She, like herclassmates, had no further citations.

Program 3: Vision High School.Vision High School (VHS) was alsooperated by a regional ESD. Carla,the head administrator, had aspecial education background. Staffat VHS consisted of certifiedteachers with varying teachingbackgrounds including specialeducation and English as a secondlanguage. VHS contracted withmultiple organizations for differentper-student funding sources,involving five major streams offunding.

VHS was located in an olderformer elementary building in anindustrial/urban setting. More than20 alternative education programswere in the area. Students attendedMonday through Thursday, 10 AM to3:15 PM, and half day on Friday.Students could receive instruction inthe evening. No smoking waspermitted on school property, butstudents could leave and smokedirectly in front of the school andthen return. VHS had a no expulsionpolicy that was breached only inextreme cases.

Attempts were made to align thecurriculum to state standards. Theprimary focus of the curriculum washands-on learning with social and jobskill integration concerning allsubjects. Students obtained credits forclass work, completing packets,parenting, and community- or ¡ob-related activities (service learning).Each student was taught how to keeptrack of his or her units/credits.Students had a sheet that wascompleted daily to show how manyunits they had earned. Units weretranslated into credits. The primaryfocus of the program was to receive aVHS diploma.

Special education services wereoffered at VHS. At one point in theschool year, VHS attempted a self-contained classroom for the mostdisruptive students in the school. VHSemployed an administrator and onespecial education teacher. Multiple,nearly comprehensive services wereoffered at the school, including on-siteday care. VHS held a contract to serveyouth leaving Oregon YouthAuthority (OYA). One probationofficer felt, in general, that alternativeeducation programs were morecooperative than typical high schools,especially VHS. There was a staffmember in the building contracted byOYA who worked with all studentsand also helped staff with issuesrelated to the juvenile justice system.

Description of students withdisabilities who attended VHS. Johnsonwas a 16-year-old boy on an IEP. Itwas unclear as to when he was put onprobation. Johnson was a sexualoffender. He was home schooledmost of his life, attending high schoolfor 1 week and one other alternativeeducation program for a brief periodof time. His goal was to eam a typicalhigh school diploma. Johnson wasreincarcerated during the school year.His foster mother stated that theprobation officer and VHS dideverything they could for him; heneeded a more structuredenvironment.

Jim was a 15-year-old boy on anIEP. He was put on probation at age

15 for multiple offences includingdrug and assault charges. Heattended VHS while in middle schooland then returned for his freshmanyear. His goal was to graduate fromhigh school and go to college to be asecurity guard. Jim was expelledfrom VHS in May for his involvementin the theft of a staff member's keys.This was one of the only times VHSexpelled a student. The administratorsaid she would be willing to allowJim to reenroll the following year.

Janelle was a 15-year-old giri onan IEP. At age 13 she was chargedand placed on probation for assaultand robbery, at which point sheenrolled in the VHS program. Herultimate goal was to graduate from atypical high school and attendcollege. In May, she served time for aprobation violation.

Stmimarif of the Components of theProgram That Appeared to Be theMost Useful for the Students

In summary, these results showthat each of the programs served adiverse population of youth. VHSdealt with gang issues on a regularbasis. All of the programs addresseddrug and alcohol use and abuse, butonly VHS and CSCC offeredcounseling for this specific need.Also, because they were located inmore populated areas, VHS andCSCC were part of a larger networkof alternative programs, and youthchose from several options.Conversely, the TEC was the onlyoption for students in the ruralsetting. The administrative structureand the funding mechanisms wereunique to each program. Becausethey served youth for the leastamount of money of the threeprograms, the funding mechanismsresulted in fewer teachers and fewerservices at the TEC. A lack of servicesresulted in students going to otherareas to receive services; parentingservices were seen as a need for somefemale youth. Likewise, eachprogram had unique systems foroffering curricular and instructionaloptions to serve students with special

1 8 B H V O N I) B H H A V I O R

PUCEMENT Of Y o u m IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Table 3 THINGS TO CONSIDIÍK WIIHN PIACING A STIIDI-NT IN AN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION

Process and Recommendations

I'hasc 1: Kt̂ tiTral and pl.iccmcnt in altcrn.iUvc educationprogram

Phase 2: Appropriate services

Phase 3: Exit and transition

FAPE Considerations

• Appropriate placement?• Is attendance a choice?• IEP in place?

• IEP maintained?• Meaningful curriculum and instruction?• All related services provided?• Interagency collaboration?• Is the program responsible for state testing requirements?

• Graduate from program or district?• Appropriate completion document?• Transition preparation and services provided/followed through?

needs and those in general education.The completion options between theprograms were not uniform. This, insome instances, created uniquediallenges for youth in specialeducation.

Finally, the relationship orconnectedness between the programsand the juvenile justice system wasapparent in each of the programs.These relationships varied acrosssites from an on-site OYA staff personto a very personal relationshipbetween Lance and the POs of hisstudents at the TEC. This relationshipwas facilitated in part by the closeproximity of the school and the PO'soffice. The direct relationships wereless pronounced at the two largerprograms, and some staff memberswere critical of the lack ofinvolvement of some POs. Becausethe juvenile justice system in thesuburban community served youthfrom ¿1 wide range of settings (veryrural to urban), there was a need toaddress a wide range of culturalissues.

Recommendations for Parentsand Practitioners

Drawing from the program andstudent descriptions, we providerecommendations for things toconsider when determining theappropriate placement of a studentwith EBD or other disabilities in aii

alternative education program. Alongwith the findings from this and ottiorresearch, these recommendations aremade specifically regarding the freeand appropriate public education(EAPE) for students with disabilities.See Table 3 for a summary of theserecommendations.

Referral and Placement inAlternative Education Program

Before making the decision toplace a student in an alternativeeducation program, the IEP teammeets to decide whether analternative education programplacement is in the best interest of thestudent's educational needs.Furthermore, it should be made clearas to whether the student is attendingthe program by choice or if she or heis being placed there. To ensureEAPE, one must inquire as to whetherthe alternative program providesspecial education services and relatedservices. Once the student is placed inan appropriate setting, one needs toensure that the student's IEP isimplemented, monitored, andadjusted based on progress and theavailability of services.

Appropriate ServicesOnce the IEP team decides an

alternative program is the mostappropriate placement, it is theresponsibility of the case manager toimplement the IEP, maintain it, and

monitor the student's progresstoward goals. The case managermakes sure that the alternativeeducation program conducts anannual IEP meeting to update thestudent's present levels ofperformance and to develop newgoals in the areas of need. The casemanager also arranges for thestudents to receive related services.One must also ask if the alternativeprogram engages in interagencycollaboration, allowing access toprograms a\'aiiable through thecommunity. These services are criticalto many children.

During the course of this study,confusion was observed betweenprograms and schools about who wasresponsible for providing stateproficiency assessment and associateaccommodations. Ultimately, thestudent's home district is responsiblefor providing the assessment andaccommodations. However, if a clearprocess is not in place, theresponsibility may be nebulous andthe student may not be offered theopportunity to take the assessment orreceive the entitled accommodations.This can be particularly problematicin states where state assessments arecriteria for graduation.

Exit and TransitionBecause most students are in high

school when they enter an alternativeeducation program, particular

20 I 0 19

PLACEMENT OF YOUTH IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

attention must be paid to thetransition services provided and theexit criteria of the program. Aspreviously mentioned, someprograms offer multiple exit optionsincluding the GED, a typical diploma,or some type of alternative certificate.Parents and guardians should beaware of these options and decidewhich is most appropriate for thechild. Also, parents and guardiansmust be aware of the costs anddifficulty of obtainingaccommodations on the GED. A GEDcan be an appropriate goal for manystudents, but the family must beaware of barriers that may preventthe attainment of that goal.

In addition, with regard to exitoptions, parents and guardiansshould inquire about where a typicaldiploma will be obtained. Morespecifically, some programs offerdiplomas in house, whereas in othersituations, a student receives adiploma from his or her home school.A more important issue than wherethe diploma comes from are thecriteria that must be met to earn adiploma. Parents should ensure thatthe student is meeting high standardsto obtain a diploma.

Summary

The purpose of this article was toprovide parents and practitionerswith critical information to attend towhen considering placing a student

with a disability in an alternativeeducation program. It is not ourintention to discourage placement inalternative education programs. Suchplacement can be an excellent optionfor many students. However, afternearly a decade of research on theseprograms, we have observed greatvariety in the quality of programs.Alternative education programs arerequired to provide students with aFAPE, and parents and practitionersmust be diligent in ensuring thishappens for students. The isolatednature of some programs makes itmore likely that the absence of criticalservices may go on unobserved. Weencourage parents and practitionersto attempt to place students with EBDin a high-quality program that isdedicated to serving the specificneeds of children with disabilities.

REFERENCESAtkins, T., Bullis, M., & Todis, B. (2005).

Converging and diverging servicedelivery systems in alternativeeducation programs for disabled andnon-disabied youth involved in thejuvenile justice system, fourual ofCorrectional Eäucatioih 56, 253-285.

Atkins, T., Hohnstein, S., & Roche, V.(2008). Perceptions of their newschool: Students with and withoutdisabilities changing to an alternativeand charter school. Journal of SchoolChoice, 1. 47-65.

Fitzsimons-Lovett, A. (2001). Alternativeeducation programs: empowermentor entrapment. In Bullock, L. M.(Ed.), Addressing the social, academic,ami bcJiavioral needs of students withchaUcngiiig behavior in inchisive andaltemative settings (pp. 37-42).Arlington, VA: Council for Childrenwith Behavioral Disorders.

Katsiyannis, A., & Williams, B. (1998). Anational survey of state initiatives onalternative education. Remedial andSpecial Education, Ï9, 276-284.

Kleiner, B., Porch, R., & Farris, E. (2002).Public alternative schools and programsfor students at risk of education failure:2000-01 (NCES 2002 004), U.S.Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics.Internet site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid =2002004 (Accessed March 3, 2007).

Raywid, M. A. (1999). History and issuesof altemative schools. The EducationDigest, 64, 47-51.

Smith, V. H. (1974). Alternative schools.Lincoln, NE: Professional Educators.

Unruh, D., Builis, M., Todis, B., Waintrup,M., & Atkins, T. (2007, January).Programs and practices for specialeducation students in alternativeeducation settings. Research to PracticeBrief 6(1). Minneapolis, MN:University oí Minnesota, NationalCenter on Secondary Education andTransition. Internet site: http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=3448 (Accessed February 20,2007).

2 0 B K Y o N tí B E H A \ ' I o R

Copyright of Beyond Behavior is the property of Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.