In addition to providing program evaluation to the alternative education programs, the Oklahoma Technical Assistance Center conducts research in the field for practitioners to use in the development and refinement of programs. The specific research conducted is based on specific issues and questions raised about "what works and what doesn't" in alternative education programs in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma's Need for Alternative Education (Fact sheet)
How Much Does It Cost to Drop Out? (Fact sheet)
The Dropout Problem
Promising Practices
Funding History for Alternative Education
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Alternative School

Evaluations from Previous Years

Article: "Keeping the Alternatives Alive"

Oklahoma's Need for Alternative Education

In accordance with the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1994, Oklahoma schools participated in a statewide assessment of the need for alternative educational programming. The form had questions on the district's demographic data, dropouts, juvenile justice referrals and current alternative education programming. Approximately 87% of the state's school districts completed the assessment; therefore, the findings are conservative estimates of the numbers of children in need of alternative programming.

The needs assessment findings indicated that 12,157 students in grades six through twelve were being served through some type of "alternative education" program. However, Oklahoma school districts estimated that 22,464 students in grades six through twelve were in need of some type of alternative education programming. Oklahoma educators based this estimate on the following 1993-94 school data drawn from the needs assessment.

•   8,436 dropped out of school

• 10,233 were retained or did not complete the required credits for the next grade level

• 34,894 scored below the 25th percentile on the ITBS/TAP

• 38,665 were assigned to an in-school suspension program for at least some part of the year

• 41,675 were absent for more than 20 days

• 51,408 averaged a grade point below 2.0

Additionally, data provided by the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS) indicated that 26,345 Oklahoma students between the grades of six and twelve had contact with the Juvenile Services Unit during the 1994-95 school year.

OTAC FACT SHEET

How Much Does It Cost To Drop Out?

The State Department of Education reported 8,436 Oklahoma students dropped out of school during 1994-95. When a student drops out of school, both the dropout and society incur costs. These costs have been estimated in terms of lost lifetime income, lost tax earnings, higher health costs, and higher probabilities of unemployment, crime, incarceration, and income assistance.

Studies of the tangible costs of dropping out of school are complex, and are thus rarely conducted. James S. Catterall, who attempted the most recent analysis in 1987, concluded that "...even when approached conservatively, the costs of dropping out are discernible, substantial, and growing." (Note: The financial estimates used in this analysis are from Catterall's conservative economic analysis, and are almost ten years old. They are underestimates of current costs.)

David Stern (1989) estimated the lost economic benefit to society per dropout solely in terms of lost productivity. The lifetime loss per dropout was conservatively estimated at $86,000. So, in addition to direct tax losses, Oklahoma loses millions in reduced productivity.

Government directly receives a benefit of $81,000 for each potential dropout that eventually graduates from high school and $86,000 in productivity over the lifetime of the individual. If the 8,436 students who dropped out of Oklahoma's schools during the 1994-95 school year were recovered and obtained their high school diploma, a conservative estimate of their lifetime economic contribution to society would be over one billion dollars.

Lost tax revenue $70,709 x 8,436 dropouts = $ 596,501,120

Increased govt. services $10,270 x 8,436 dropouts = $ 86,637,720

Lost productivity: $86,000 x 8,436 dropouts = $ 725,496,000

Total lost economic benefit to society: $ 1,408,634,840

The dropout problem

Current estimates:

• One-fourth of America's students drop out of school, a total of over one million students per year

• The annual cost to the nation is estimated at $75 billion per year

• One-third of dropouts are unemployed, compared to 8% of high-school graduates.

• 82% of America's prisoners are dropouts

• In Oklahoma, 16.5% of students drop out of school, a total of over 7, 200 students per year

- 11.3% (825 students) drop out before enrolling in ninth grade

- 21.8% (1583 students) drop out after reaching age 18

Oklahoma state dropout rates have been reported in the Oklahoma Educational Indicators since 1988-89. In Oklahoma statues, a dropout is defined as "...any student who is under the age of eighteen (18) and has not graduated from high school and is not attending any public or private school or is not otherwise receiving an education."

Dropout rates calculated using this definition underestimate the problem, since they do not include students who dropped out prior to reaching ninth grade (11.3%) nor students who dropped out after reaching age 18 (21.8%). The statutory definition, then, does not count a full one-third (33.1%) of Oklahoma dropouts. The State Department of Education therefore annually reports dropout statistics that reflect both the statutory definition and the total number of students who drop out of school. When using the statutory definition, the dropout rates for African-Americans are overestimated and the dropout rates for Indian students are underestimated.

The statewide graduation rate is calculated by comparing the number of students who enter the ninth grade with the number who graduate four years later, and can be used to estimate the extent to which dropouts are under-counted. The graduation rate in 1992-93 was 79.4%. Thus, the dropout rate (16.5%) and the graduation rate account for approximately 96% of students. When other factors (e.g., out-migration) are taken into account, it is evident that the total dropout rate is a fair indicator of the problem in Oklahoma.

Evaluation findings to date

Variables. The evaluation of student outcomes for the High Challenge and Alternative Education programs are varied as each program had components which did not lend themselves to quantitative evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant programs, a common set of core data was analyzed. The dropout prevention literature cites five factors as highly related to dropping out of school. The evaluative hypothesis was that successful dropout prevention projects should have a significant impact on at least some of these variables. The five quantitative indices were:

• grade point averages

• number of disciplinary referrals

• standardized test scores

• number of classes (or courses) failed

• number of absences

High-Challenge programs. In 1992-93, 17 High-challenge projects were funded that served 3,368 students in grades K-12. The students served were split evenly across levels and along gender lines (elementary, middle, high). Pre-post analysis of the projects as a group indicated significant positive changes on four of the five indicators. (The number of disciplinary referrals was reduced by an average of one per year, although the difference was not statistically significant). Also, many of the High-Challenge projects administered self-esteem measures which indicated significant increases between the pre and posttest scores.

In addition to within-group comparisons, the projects were compared to school districts that were matched on demographic variables. The results of the analysis indicated statistically significant differences between the program and comparison groups on each of the five variables.

Alternative Education programs. A total of 1,706 students (58% male) were served by the Alternative Education program. 84% of the students served were in grades 9-12; very few elementary-level students are served by this program. Pre-post analysis of the projects as a group indicated significant positive differences on GPA, credits earned, and absences. A significant difference was not noted on standardized test scores (many programs that include recovered dropouts did not have pretest scores) and a significant increase was noted in the number of disciplinary referrals (teachers were more likely to refer students for disciplinary problems if in-school-suspension was available). When compared to a group of districts with similar demographic makeup, the program group performed significantly better on all of the variables analyzed.

Promising practices. Since its inception in 1989, the Oklahoma Technical Assistance Center has evaluated the effectiveness of over 130 projects for high-challenge students and schools. These evaluations have provided OTAC with the unique opportunity to examine diverse project components in a variety of settings. 

Three factors tend to influence the success of a project: project resources, program length, and staff quality and commitment.

• Resources. When a project is initially implemented in a school district there is a tendency to over-refer, particularly if a cap has not been set for the number of students that can be served. Projects with high staff-student ratios did not produce results comparable to those obtained in projects with similar components and more realistic ratios. Projects should set guidelines for the number of students to be served that are in accordance with staff, resources, and facilities. Once the program is operational, the cap may be re-evaluated.

• Program length. Students must be in a program long enough for it to have an effect. Short term programs such as in-school suspension do not appear to affect the school-related variables measured.

• Project staff. Teachers of high-challenge children and youth should be compassionate, empathetic professionals who are well-versed in at-risk education and have the desire to teach high-challenge students. Because many alternative programs rely on year-to-year funding, programs have difficulty in obtaining and retaining the services of such qualified and experienced personnel. This is one area where small, rural schools are at a disadvantage. Small districts with limited budgets can not always ensure teachers' employment without grant funds; the lack of employment security affects the quality of staff that can be recruited to the project and retained.

Several of the projects in the Alternative Approaches program have approached alternative education in ways other than those listed in the attached table. OTAC has not had the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of these practices for a sufficient length of time or in sufficient depth. Although further study is required, they may be considered promising approaches for addressing the needs of high-challenge children and youth:

• Teen-parenting components. Services for teen parents are generally offered in two forms: off-campus alternative instructional programs (including child care and parenting skills), and homebound instruction. These projects appear to be successful in keeping students in school, allowing them to gain credit toward graduation. Because of low incidence and scarcity of DHS-approved child care facilities in rural and small communities, programs for pregnant and parenting teens are easier to operate in larger communities.

• Mentoring. Few projects have systematically integrated mentoring programs, but the practice appears to have potential when well-implemented. Through the Alternative Approaches program, we are building a database of successful/unsuccessful methods for recruiting and utilizing mentors.

• Coordination with other service providers. This has been a major component for a number of grantees, and significantly enhances the operation of the projects, especially alternative education projects.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Alternative Schools

(Source: American Federation of Teachers)

The AFT supports alternative schools for violent and chronically disruptive students. Because persistent and serious disruptions by only one or two students prevent an entire class from learning, these students may need to be moved to alternative settings where they will get an academic program and intensive help to change their behavior. Both students who come to school willing and ready to learn and those who are chronically disruptive benefit from such an arrangement.

Because effective alternative schools designed for chronically disruptive students use small classes--often 10 to 15 students per class--and extra resources such as counselors and social workers, they cost more than regular public schools. The annual cost to educate a student in an alternative school frequently reaches $7,000 or more, or 25 percent more than the average cost per student in public school of $5,600 per year. However, these costs vary widely by community according to the cost and availability of facilities, the cost of living, and other factors.

Nevertheless, the benefits of high-quality alternative schools can far outweigh the costs. Students in regular classes learn much more when disruptive students are removed. And misbehaving students who receive the help they need are more likely to stay in school, get jobs and support themselves, and commit fewer crimes. The dollar value of these benefits, estimated and explained below, can exceed $20,000 per student served. Even if an alternative school provides very specialized and intensive services and costs double the amount of regular education ($11,200), it still represents a worthwhile investment.

The estimates listed below are based on empirical evidence about the benefits that accrue from alternative schooling. In fact, the estimates may understate the benefits of alternative schools because they do not include other benefits such as keeping teachers in the profession, reducing drug and alcohol use, lowering teen pregnancy rates, and preventing injury and property damage by reducing crime.

The following is a breakdown of the potential savings from alternative schools:

• More Learning in Regular Classrooms. Teachers report that dealing with disruptive students can take up a half-hour or more of learning time each day, or almost 10 percent of total learning time. If chronically disruptive students were placed in alternative schools and the lost learning time was recovered, the value of that time for each student in a regular classroom would be $560 annually (one-tenth of the $5,600 cost of educating each student). If 25 students learn more because a disruptive student is removed, the savings for that classroom each year would reach $14,000 annually.

• Less Repetition of Grades by Students. If an alternative school program helps 50 percent of its students to avoid repeating a grade by providing intensive, specialized help, the annual savings per student would be $2,800.

• Lower Dropout Rates. Adults who have finished high school earn over $200,000 more and pay more than $60,000 in taxes than dropouts do during their lifetime. If an alternative school program helps 50 percent of its students to stay in school and get a high school diploma, the average participant would earn $2,000 more and pay $600 more in taxes each year.

• Less Use of Welfare. Each additional year of high school completion can reduce an adult's risk of welfare dependency by as much as 35 percent. A family of three receiving welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid usually receives more than $10,000 in public benefits each year. If 50 percent of students in alternative schools complete an extra year of school, the average annual savings to the public of reduced welfare use would be $1,750.

• Less Incarceration. The average annual cost of housing a prisoner in a state or local jail is $15,000. If alternative schools help only 10 percent of their students stay out of jail, the annual average savings would be $1,500. Because many prisoners serve much longer sentences, the long-term savings would be much greater.

Funding History for Alternative Education