A descriptive case study of secondary alternative education programs in Lancaster County, Pennsylvani

The purpose of this study was to describe alternative education programs in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and determine the procedures of 11 different school districts participating in the same alternative program. The research questions addressed in this study were: (a) What are effective characteristics of alternative programs designed to enhance learning for at-risk students? (b) What criteria are used for admittance? (c) What strategies and techniques are used to evaluate program effectiveness?;Representatives from the 16 public high schools in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, completed a questionnaire about alternative education. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from the 11 schools that participated in the IU-operated Alternative Vocational Education Program (AVEP). In addition to the county questionnaire and the interviews, student questionnaires and informal observations were conducted and student records were examined.;Data analysis revealed that only one district did not have an alternative program for disruptive students. Seven districts had more than one program designed for disruptive students. The programs varied in design with regard to hours, staffing, curricula, and program goals. The three most effective characteristics found in this study were: low student-teacher ratios, hands-on relevant curricula, and caring teachers.;Alternative education programs for disruptive students were found to be successful. There were three main reasons cited for success: (a) removing disruptive students from the traditional setting provided a better learning environment for the general student population; (b) disruptive students were being given a better option than expulsion; (c) if one student was "saved" and became employed and was a productive citizen, the program was successful.;The success of alternative programs was found to be measured by the number of students who were returned to the traditional school setting and the number who graduated. In addition to graduation, the AVEP measured student success by the number of students who accepted treatment for a variety of physical and mental problems, received achievement awards in their vocational area, and became employed.;In some cases, academically at-risk students were referred to alternative programs; however, the primary reason for referral was disruptive behavior. None of the districts interviewed allowed students to apply or choose to go to an alternative program without a referral. Two admission processes emerged: the first was a committee or team decision; the second was strictly an administrative (principal or assistant principal) decision.;With few regulations governing alternative programs, placement, follow-up, and accountability were left to the school district. Access to well-designed alternative programs may be the solution for academically at-risk students who are not "bad enough" to meet the criteria which currently drives most placement decisions. Information gathered may contribute to more successful alternative programs for secondary school students.