Zachery Westdyke

EDUC 425
Essay #3
Since the American education system has been in place, the challenge of providing the
best education for each student has been undertaken. Schools were built specifically for students
of different races, genders, and social classes (Young, 1990). Starting in the 1950s, though, a
need arose to better educate students at risk of failing in a traditional school setting. The current
education system was criticized for being too exclusive and narrow, ignoring the needs of each
student specifically. As a response, new schools started to be erected as alternative education
programs, and designed with the hopes of serving students who struggled in a traditional
academic setting. By the 1960s, most of these schools had divided into two forms: alternatives
within the public school system and alternatives outside of the public school system (Lange &
Sletten, 2002).
Given that the alternative education program at PATH is outside of the public school
system, I will focus the history on alternatives that fall under this category. Coming out of the
Civil Rights Era, the first major subtype of alternative education programs (hereafter referred to
as AEP) outside of the public school system was schools designed for minorities (AfricanAmerican children in particular). Known as the Freedom Schools movement, They were
developed as a community-school model and were run outside of the public education system in
settings ranging from church basements to store fronts Lange & Sletten, 2002, p. 3). Contrary
to a system largely under community control, the second subtype of AEPs outside of the public
education system were referred to as the Free School Movement. These schools were founded
on the notion that mainstream public education was inhibiting and alienating to many students

and that schools should be structured to allow students to freely explore their natural intellect and
curiosity (Lange & Sletten, 2002, p. 3). Naturally, these schools were generally grounded in the
idea of allowing the student to achieve self-fulfillment. The closest resemblance to schools out
of the Free School Movement would be what many charter schools look like today; indeed, AEPs
from the 1960s, though short-lived, laid the foundation for future and current AEPs.
Two major themes came from this initial era of AEPs: the freedom to choose a school
program and the necessity for schools that better served individual children specifically those
who have been underserved or ignored in traditional public schools. These two themes have led
to several characteristics of AEPs today, Lange & Sletten (2002) describe them as follows:
Maintaining a small size, emphasizing one-on-one interaction between teachers and students,
creating a supportive environment, allowing opportunities for student success relevant to the
students future, allowing flexibility in structure and emphasis on student decision-making (p.
6). But the varying consistency of these features existing in AEPs throughout the 1990s has led
to a further distinction of three main types of AEPs by Raywid (1994): Type I, Type II, and Type
III. Type I alternatives, otherwise known as popular innovations, most closely resemble modern
day charter or magnet schools. They are usually attended by choice, and are likely to reflect
programmatic themes or emphases pertaining to content or instructional strategy, or both (p.
27). Type II alternatives, referred to as last-chance programs, are just that a program that is
often thought of as the students last chance for a successful education. Unlike Type I
alternatives, students are often mandated to attend last-chance programs, likely due to behavioral
issues in or outside of school (expulsion due to truancy, fighting, drugs, etc.). Typically, Type II
programs focus on behavior modification, and little attention is paid to modifying curriculum or
pedagogy (p. 27). Type III alternatives, referred to as remedial focus, and are designed for

students who may need some kind of emotional, social, and/or academic rehabilitation. They are
meant to serve as a temporary hiatus, where the student can learn to better thrive in a traditional
academic setting. Thus, they are often geared toward adjusting the students behaviors,
somewhat like Type II alternatives. In Type III alternatives, however, this change in behavior is
typically done through an intensive restructuring of the educational setting and a communitybased approach (p. 28).
Despite these varying types of AEPs, some common characteristics can still be identified
in most successful programs:

clearly identified goals to inform both evaluation and enrollment;

Wholehearted implementation without a piecemeal approach to structuring programs;
Autonomy;
Student-centered atmosphere;
Integration of research and practice in areas such as assessment, curriculum, teacher

competencies, and integration of special education services;

Training and support for teachers who work with at-risk populations with or without

disabilities;
Links to multiple agencies, an element that may become increasingly important as
alternatives are required to serve students with special education needs (Lange &
Sletten, 2002, p. 9).

The degree to which the alternative education program at PATH follows and exemplifies these
recommendations will be discussed.
The AEP at PATH most closely resembles the type of AEP described by Raywid (1994)
as remedial focus, or Type III. That is, an alternative program that focuses on the emotional,
social, and academic rehabilitation of its students. However, it could also be thought of in some
ways as a last chance program in that, for many of the students there, it is just that a last
chance for them to have a successful educational experience. Perhaps the most crucial aspect to

the AEP program at PATH that sets it in the Type III category, though, is its focus on community.
The model employed at PATH is one that treats everyone in the program as being interconnected
and, in many ways, interdependent. When one person falls (be it a student or staff member), it is
the responsibility of everyone in the community to help bring that person back up. The program
rewards students for good behaviors, and students are granted certain privileges based on their
behavior. Blue students are granted the most privileges, and are given Blue status for
exhibiting positive behaviors and being positive role models in the community. Blue students
are also allowed to passively confront other students for exhibiting behavior that goes against the
norm of the community. While this system of privileges and punishments can sometimes create
factions and discouragement within the community, it also allows for it to be a strong, studentcentered environment, and gives students an incentive to positively change their behavior.
In regard to having clearly defined goals, each student at PATH is paired with a case
worker who works with the student to develop a personal development plan (PDP) that is unique
to the students needs. Thus, while the program itself has clearly defined goals (namely to set the
students on a better path to being positive contributors to a healthier society), each student and
staff member also has his or her own set of specific goals. The goals and structure of the
program are taught to both the staff members and the students, so that everyone is on the same
page about what the expectations are in the alternative learning environment. Every student
recites different lists that describe rules of the program several times a day; one example of this
is what is known as the list of Norms. Norms are expectations of the community - not
necessarily rules - that every student will know by heart within a few days of being in the
program. Some basic norms include phrases like, Around here we support each other, and
Around here we participate in all activities. By marketing them as norms instead of rules,

it creates an atmosphere where a disregard for a norm is a disregard for the health and safety of
the community, rather than just a staff member.
The norms and color ratings are two ways in which structure is created at PATH. As
Vaughn et al. (2005) describe: Teachers usually realize that providing appropriate intervention is
not sufficient but that the students day-to-day environment must be structured to promote mental
health (p. 112). While Vaughn et al. (2006) mostly focus on physical structure (as in living in
an organized and consistent classroom, this can also be applied to having structure of operations
and expectations. The staff members at PATH are very particular about sticking to the
expectations and operations of the community, and about not being inconsistent or giving
preferential treatment (i.e. just because a student is blue doesnt mean he or she can break a
norm). This meticulous attention to details helps keep the hierarchy at PATH as flat as possible,
so that each student feels autonomous and has an equal chance at changing their behavior in a
positive way.
Negative behaviors are also dealt with in a likewise manner in that certain behaviors
typically have specific outcomes. A student who puts another student down (depending on the
severity) is first given a warning. If the behavior continues then the student is pulled aside by
another staff member and spoken to in another room, as unobtrusive to the other students
learning as possible. If the staff member feels the misbehaving student is ready to join the
community, he or she will send him or her back, otherwise, the student is sent to exclusion until
he or she is ready to once again join the group. In exclusion, the student is temporarily isolated
from the group while a staff member provides him or her with whatever assignment the rest of
the class is doing. The general rule behind punishment is that if a student fails to be a supportive
member of the group, he or she will not be allowed to participate in that group.

In addition to staff member punishments, however, blue students are also given some
similar privileges. As previously mentioned, blue students are allowed to confront negative
behaviors of other students, or behaviors that go against the norms of the community. As most of
the students respect each other, this generally works out to be a pretty effective way for students
to challenge their peers negative behaviors. Similarly, every student is given an opportunity at
the end of the day to discuss a concern they may have had that day. This is typically the time
when members who are not blue will speak up about a negative behavior they may have
noticed that day, or some other ongoing concern. This part of the day is known as Townhouse,
and is a very structured, organized, and fair opportunity for every student to reflect on the days
events. No talk-back is allowed, and students are continually encouraged to be as unbiased and
factual about their concerns as possible. This is another way that some autonomy is given to the
students they have the power to raise concerns about what happens in their community.
The regular school day is in some ways similar to a traditional public school, except that
the students are in the same room all day. Because of this, the different subjects being taught are
typically broken up by brief breaks every 30-45 minutes. This is to try to keep the students
focused and alert, seeing as several of them already do not find school important. Unlike most
traditional public schools, however, students at PATH receive a daily Life Skills lesson from a
counselor. These lessons vary, and consist of anything from financial budgeting to healthy
relationships. Basically, this is the therapeutic portion of the school day where the students
negative behaviors are targeted and hopefully substituted with more positive behaviors. It is also
used to teach them specific skills that might apply to them in the real world.
While PATH is only one specific example of an AEP, it reflects the goals of most
alternative programs. Namely, I see the commonality between most AEPs as a desire to better

serve students who are disadvantaged in a traditional educational setting. The way most of these
programs seem to go about doing this is by concentrating on behaviors of the students that lead
to traditional education programs as being less than effective. Although most AEPs focus on the
students negative behavior, most programs operate from a compassionate perspective,
understanding that it should not be seen as the fault of the student for adopting those behaviors in
the first place. In regard to the effectiveness of these schools, Raywid (1994) concludes that
Remedial Focus AEPs tend to be effective in temporarily increasing student involvement and
attendance, but that this increase is not usually lasting. The students truancy and lack of effort
returns shortly after the students are readmitted into a more traditional educational setting. The
typical conclusion is that the program has failed to fix the students. Rarely is it concluded that
the environment makes the difference and is what enables these students to succeed (Raywid,
1994, p. 28). In other words, it often seems to be the case that the students behavior is changed
under the environment of an alternative education setting, but that this change does not always
carry over into a traditional setting. This suggests either a flaw in the alternative education
programs (they are not targeting the students behavior specifically, but rather creating an
environment which temporarily alters the behavior) or a flaw in the traditional educational
setting (traditional programs do not serve all students equally). Likely, it is a combination of
both cases.
In regard to my personal philosophy, I think alternative education programs like PATH
are necessary, but generally less than sufficient at reaching their desired goals. What Ive mostly
found at PATH is that it is difficult to find a balance between an academic and therapeutic
setting; the day school program is mostly centered on academia. While this might seem obvious
(considering it is still a school), this does not allow for the students negative behavior to be

challenged. Most of the behavior changes Ive seen have occurred in the after-school setting,
where much more time can be devoted to counseling the students. Im not sure how to reconcile
this lack of a therapeutic setting in an AEP with the necessity for academics to still happen.
Indeed, I believe one needs to happen before the other, and I think a lot of alternative education
programs tend to ignore the need to first change students behaviors before teaching them a
curriculum of knowledge. What many AEPs end up looking like are traditional schools but with
a better teacher-to-student ratio and with more students who have some sort of learning disability
or behavioral disorder. There are small things (like the Townhouses for example) which can
make it seem more alternative, but by and large it ends up looking pretty similar. Thus, I think
an ideal AEP would look something like a combination of the after-school program and dayschool program at PATH (which will be discussed in more detail in the next paper). The therapy
needs to happen in an academic setting if there is to be much hope of the positive behavior
changes carrying over into the traditional educational setting; everything we learn happens in a
specific context, and it will be remembered in that context. Thus, if a students behavior is
altered outside of an academic context, we cannot expect that change to carry over into an
academic one.
References
Raywid, M. A. (September 01, 1994). Alternative Schools: The State of the Art. Educational
Leadership, 52, 1, 26-31.
Vaughn, S., Bos, C., & Schumm, J. S. (2006). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students
in the general education classroom. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Young, T. (1990). Public Alternative Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.