-------------------------------------------------
Alternative Education Committee
An
Advisory Committee to the Seattle School Board
FINAL REPORT
June 30, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION 3
II. HISTORY OF ALTERNATIVE
EDUCATION IN THE 5
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
III. VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE
SCHOOLS TO THE SEATTLE 6
SCHOOL DISTRICT
IV. THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION 8
V. POLICY, PROCEDURE AND
WAIVER RECOMMENDATIONS 16
VI. EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS 22
VII. CHALLENGES AND NEXT STEPS 22
VIII. CONCLUSION 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY 24
APPENDIX A: MEMBERS AND MEETING
SCHEDULE 27
APPENDIX B: THE BEST PRACTICES
OF AUTHENTIC 28
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS
A. Charge of the Committee: To develop an operational definition of alternative education in the Seattle School District and make policy recommendations about alternative education to the Seattle School Board.
Although alternative schools have been in the District since the late 1960s, there is no clear School Board policy on alternative education, no administrative or consistent budget support structures, and no clear operational definition of what is meant by alternative education. The work of this committee will provide clarity for the District on policies related to academics and operations as they affect alternative schools.
The following question guided the committee in its development of the operational definition, “What is our vision of alternative education that will still be relevant ten years from now?” We agreed not to simply define the status quo.
School Board Director Butler-Wall, to whom our committee reported, encouraged us from the beginning to “Aim high. Create a real wish list of what an ideal alternative school might be like.” While we were inspired by these words, we continually kept in mind the District’s current fiscal crisis and the limitations that it could impose on our recommendations. Nevertheless, we believed that to recommend anything but the best practices would not be in the best long-term interests of either the District or alternative education. Our policy, procedure and waiver recommendations are changes that we believe will support, sustain and expand alternative education in the Seattle School District.
B. Membership: Of the 35 nominations submitted for this committee, 15 were selected to represent District central office, principals, teachers, parents, community organizations, university faculty, students, Principals Association of the Seattle Schools (PASS), Seattle Education Association (SEA), and Seattle Council Parent-Student-Teacher Association (SCPTSA) with a balance of differing gender, ethnicity, race, age, geographic and stakeholder interest groups. The Chair made a deliberate decision to select a representative from each alternative school that submitted a nomination form. The 15 members were an experienced and diverse blend of practitioners, parents, students and academicians in alternative education— kindergarten through higher education. Five graduate students in education, recruited as interns by the Chair through Antioch University, attended all meetings.
C. Outreach: Nominees who were not selected for committee membership and other interested parties were placed on our email advisory list. This group numbered more than 80. Many on our email advisory list sent our committee minutes to other email lists; therefore, those having access to our committee minutes easily numbered in the hundreds. The Chair maintained contact with the alternative school community through email, phone calls, school visits and meetings. Committee meetings were open to the public and had occasional observers. All committee minutes and handouts were available to the public in a binder in the School Board office and will be retained by the District as a permanent record.
D. Process:
Guiding Principles: Committee members agreed to: 1) keep their constituencies regularly informed of the work of the committee and to solicit their feedback; and, 2) develop an operational definition of alternative education that could be relevant ten years from now, not simply the status quo. Establishing this clarity at the onset helped us through many philosophical debates as differences in practices and beliefs surfaced.
Voting Process: Each member of the committee, including the Chair, had an equal vote. Two votes were required to defeat a proposal. A member could vote on an issue only if s/he had been present at the meeting during which the issue was discussed. The interns did not have voting rights.
Initially, we worked in small groups to begin our discussion of the characteristics of alternative education that were based on our individual experiences. It was essential to develop trust and familiarity with each other so that members could openly discuss and debate ideas and develop a common vocabulary. Subsequent discussions were with the committee as a whole. The nature of our work necessitated lengthy discussions about educational philosophy and practices. Because educational philosophy is not a cut-and-dry issue, any meaningful decisions on our part required many hours of discussion.
In addition to the committee members’ collective experience in alternative education, we based our work on professional literature, scholarly research, and District archives and documents. The interns played an instrumental role by conducting both archival and on-line research. One intern served as the committee’s secretary. The District provided the Chair with an edumail account and use of the School Board copier.
Alternative schools recognize that they are different from traditional schools—this is, in fact, their purpose—and, thus, have different needs. In the Seattle School District each alternative school was founded in its own way by its own group of founders and not “top-down” from central office. Each school has its own history, its own mission, and its own identity. Each alternative school serves the needs of its students and families in a related but, nonetheless, unique way because each alternative school has been chosen for its particular identity by all or most of its families and by its staff.
To regard all of the various alternative schools in the District as the same or “same enough” is a profound error in perception. They are not essentially the same. Rather the opposite: they are essentially unique.
The history of alternative education in the Seattle School District had its origins in the late 1960s when the District responded to “all of the problems typical of urban districts today—increasing racial isolation, student alienation and disaffection, economic recession, and community demands for educational accountability...[these symptoms] can best be described as emanating from a group of students who are either left behind by the system, or who turn off the system because it is not changing fast enough or far enough to meet their needs.” (Hickey, 1972)
In those years, nearly every traditional high school had its own alternative school-within-a-school. The District had 13 separate alternative programs operating on a full-time basis and 23 part-time re-entry programs (Hickey, 1972). Very few of these early alternative schools still exist for reasons that bear scrutiny as we study the current state of affairs for alternative education in the District. While some schools did not survive, in the ensuing years the District started several new autonomous alternative schools such as Summit K-12, Orca, AEII, Pathfinder, Coho and NOMS. Clearly, alternative education has had its ups and downs in our District. However, it is also clear that alternative education has durability and a dedicated constituency.
A. Alternative Schools Embody Consistent Values and Practice
Alternative schools have always been about helping all students achieve, and they serve the entire spectrum of children who come to them for many different reasons. They offer a range of options that serve the educational needs of many students and families whose needs are not met by traditional schools. Alternative schools meet this goal by emphasizing the following characteristics on a school-wide—not an isolated classroom—basis:
· Providing each student with a personalized education through a focus on the individual student’s academic, social and emotional needs with systems in place to address those needs as part of daily practice.
· Being chosen by families, students and staff for the school’s distinct mission, culture, philosophy and practices.
· Assessing student learning authentically and without sorting or stratifying.
· Having a strong identity and being shaped by the community it serves.
· Articulating and modeling shared values.
· Including and responding to the voices of all its constituents by distributing leadership.
· Being less bureaucratic and more personal.
· Experimenting and innovating pedagogical practices.
B. Alternative Schools As Small Schools
Alternative schools, as described in this report, have many common characteristics with good small schools: heterogeneously mixed student populations; non-exclusive admissions policies; continuous, vertically aligned education experience; cohesive faculty committed to the vision of the school; common focus; personalization and continuous relationships between students and teachers and school and families; rigor and high expectations for all students; instructional practices like active inquiry and performance-based assessment; and supportive learning partnerships in the community (Alliance for Education, 2003). Research has shown that schools with these characteristics can improve attendance, climate, safety, achievement, graduation rates, college attendance rates, staff member satisfaction, parent involvement, and community engagement (Wasley, P. et al., 2000) and counter many of the effects of poverty (Vander Ark, T., 2002).
C. Alternative Schools As the District’s Response to Charter Schools, Private Schools and Home-Schooling
The alternative schools described in this report have several characteristics in common with charter schools: choice; distinctiveness; considerable autonomy; less bureaucratic focus; and local control. In its rejection of the Charter School Initiative (2004), the School Board referred to its alternative schools as meeting the public’s demand for charter schools. In other words, the existing system provides what the public wants and needs. Without the choice and distinctiveness that alternative schools provide, the District may well lose families to private schools or home schooling or will under-serve students whose families cannot afford either option. Although the public demand for charter schools is not a current front-page issue, interest in them remains as an active threat to public education as we know it. Noted alternative school scholar and researcher, Mary Anne Raywid, voices an unequivocal opinion that “Americans will have educational choice. If the public sector does not provide it they will seek it elsewhere.” (Raywid, M. A., 2001). Alternative schools serve the needs of the District by providing choice, equity of access, market share, and the preservation of the democratic structure of public education.
D. Alternative Schools As Research and Development
The alternative schools in our District have always been incubators and pioneers for new pedagogical and structural practices. They have functioned and continue to function as a research and development arm of the District, notwithstanding varying degrees of District support or resistance. Examples of innovative practices that had beginnings in alternative schools are: project-based learning, six-trait writing, Investigations Math Curriculum, National Science Foundation kits, competency-based credits, shared decision making, multi-age classrooms, and school-without-walls. The alternative schools, with adequate District support, are positioned to invigorate public education and to help institutionalize educational reform within the District.
E. Other Pertinent Data
· Most of the alternative schools in the District have historically maintained long waiting lists.
· Alternative schools historically score higher than District averages on climate surveys.
· Alternative schools have traditionally been safe havens for GLBTQ youth and families and other youth who have a marginal position in society.
· Alternative schools retain students in the public school system who would otherwise drop out.
· Alternative schools have activities and committees that aggressively address issues of social justice, diversity and equity.
· A recent report of the Center for Reinventing Public Education (Roza, M. et al., 2005) compared the cost/student for students in small schools with students in large schools. The results show that when educational services from central budgets are combined with educational spending, the cost/student in small high schools is not universally higher than the cost in large schools.
In defining alternative schools, we have identified 12 Key Elements of alternative education. These Key Elements are related and interdependent. It would be difficult to fully embrace a few of them but not the others. Our committee has agreed that a school must practice all 12 of the Key Elements to some degree in order to be considered alternative. In addition, the Key Elements must be systemic—adopted by the entire school community—and not practiced by a few “alternative” teachers in the building.
That said, the list of Key Elements is a broad statement of the ideals and philosophy of alternative education rather than a simple checklist of required activities. Seattle’s alternative schools operate within a large bureaucracy; local, state and federal mandates sometimes compromise some of the Key Elements. In addition, different alternative schools in the District have different histories, missions and communities, and thus may manifest some of the Key Elements differently. In other words, the alternative schools should not be thought of as interchangeable. The Key Elements should also be seen as goals toward which alternative schools continually strive. They are not intended as a template for replication purposes. See Appendix B “The Best Practices of Authentic Alternative Schools” for the research citations on each Element.
In order to make this an operational definition of alternative education, we have included a bulleted list of indicators with each Key Element, showing how alternative schools put these ideas into practice in their classrooms and communities.
In our District, there are two historically defined alternative schools models: “progressive” and “retrieval/continuation.” While there are differences in the mission and practices of these two models, the committee believes that they have many commonalities. Our Operational Definition of alternative education is inclusive of both models.
The 12 Key Elements of the
Best Practices of Alternative Education
1. Informed Choice
Choice is the fundamental “best practice” of alternative education. Students, staff and the principal must be at an alternative school voluntarily because of the school’s distinct mission, core values and practices. Choosing an alternative school solely because it is the family’s neighborhood school or for reasons other than the school’s distinct mission, core values and practices does not constitute choice in our meaning of the word.
Seattle Public Schools is dedicated to ensuring that all students are offered an opportunity to attend alternative schools, including those students who need bilingual or special education services. Students who need specialized services may attend alternative schools through a slightly different enrollment process, but it is still assumed that a student and his/her family are making an informed choice about attending the school.
The basic idea of school choice continues to surface in public education as one way to increase educational effectiveness by responding differentially to diverse student needs and interests, enhance students’ interest in education and commitment to their schools, and contribute to the vitality and democratic structure of public education.
Indicators:
· Students and families are allowed to choose the school.
· Students and families understand, share and support the school’s philosophy and values.
· Instructional, support and administrative staff are at the school by choice.
· Instructional, support and administrative staff are chosen by the school community.
·
Instructional, support and administrative staff
understand, share and support the school’s philosophy and values.
2. Open to All
Alternative schools are open to any and all students except when it is not an appropriate choice or placement for the student’s needs, i.e., specialized program unavailability.
3. Continuousness
Students must not only be able to choose to be at an alternative school, but they must have the option to stay. The “option to stay” means that the school provides a high-quality, comprehensive education with the opportunity for the student to “graduate” from the school onto the next school level. It is not designed as a part-time or short-term educational experience whose intent is to transition the student back to the home school.
4. Shared Decision Making
From the inception of alternative schools in the early 1970s, having students and parents share in the decisions that affect the school was a major characteristic of alternative programs. In many ways this enactment of democratic practices in public schools is what makes alternative schools so different from traditional public schools. In democratic schools, there are varying degrees of self-governance, but there is a shared commitment to democracy as a significant element in the life of the school. Degrees of student self-governance may vary depending on the grade level of the student.
The value of shared decision making for students is that they feel much more a part of the school. They also tend to obey rules that they have helped create. They respect an authority that they have put in place. Moreover, the more that students can be involved in making decisions about their education, the more likely they are to take true responsibility for their own education.
The more that school leadership is shared by all school community members, the more the school’s mission and practices are commonly held and practiced by all school community members, making it more likely that the school will preserve its mission as new staff replace former ones.
Schools that practice shared decision making have climates that are positive and respectful. Their cultures are ones of collective ownership and responsibility.
Finally, schools that practice shared decision-making teach democratic ideals. To cite two of the beliefs from the “Seattle School Board Vision, Values, Beliefs, Goals and Mission” statement for 2004-05, “Public education is a foundation of democracy and provides the tools to create a more egalitarian and just society.” And, “We model what students learn—by what we say, what we do, how we treat each other, and how we organize and run our schools.”
Indicators:
· Students, families, instructional staff and principal are all active participants in decision making about the school’s vision, mission, policies, rules, budget, hiring, and curriculum.
· Time is structured for staff to plan and collaborate on teaching and learning.
· Families, staff and students, as age-appropriate, have equal voice.
· Students, families and staff participate throughout the planning, implementation and evaluation processes.
·
Structures are in place to provide equal access to
information and decision-making to all stakeholders.
· All school community members have the opportunity and are encouraged to participate in decision making.
· The school principal agrees to collaborate in decision making.
5. Alternative Assessment
Various styles of learning demand not only varied teaching styles but also varied forms of assessment. Providing both teacher and student with a variety of assessment methods provides more authentic evaluative information to and about the students. Providing both teacher and student with a variety of assessment methods creates more options for student success than the traditional sorting-oriented assessment. This benefits both teacher and student. Alternative assessment involves both the learner and the teacher in the assessment process. It is holistic and brings equity to assessment that is missing from a “one-size-fits-all” standardized testing system.
Indicators: An assessment system that
· is based on competencies (academic, social and emotional) that are worthwhile, teachable and socially valued.
· is based on high standards that value both common and individual needs.
· uses multiple forms of qualitative and quantitative evidence from both academic and non-academic areas (e.g., portfolios).
· includes alternative forms of assessment that allow students to communicate or display mastery in different forms (e.g., performances) to authentic audiences.
· provides for the student’s collaborative participation in self-reflection and evaluation, goal-setting and ownership of the assessment process.
· takes into account the student’s emotional reaction to the results of the assessment to build self-confidence, view of self as learner, and willingness to put forth best effort.
· depends upon the observations of familiar adults (teachers, families) in the child’s life to provide convergent data on real-life functioning.
· is created for learning. Assessment is descriptive and formative with more focus on feedback.
· avoids grades, marks or labeling that sort or stratify students.
· tailors the assessment to individual cases with the student measured against own self not against others.
6. Deeply Caring and Respectful School Culture That Creates Community
Alternative schools are likened to families because of the strong sense of belonging that students, families and staff experience. They have a warm, friendly atmosphere that emphasizes personalization, support, caring, cooperation, and acceptance. Communities are “designed around relationships: the relationships of the student to the work, the relationships between the students and the teachers, and the relationships among the adults in the school.” (Vander Ark, T. and Wagner, T., 2000). Strong relationships are the foundation of community.
To cite the “Seattle School Board Vision, Values, Beliefs, Goals and Mission” statement for 2004-05, “Public education must help all children and youth reach their highest potential, feel successful, and become wise, thoughtful, and caring adults.”
Indicators:
· Opportunities exist or are created for each member of the school community to experience success individually and as part of a group.
· Every student is known and has a single point of contact at school through an adult who acts as adviser and advocate. The staff is highly accessible.
· The relationships between staff and students are highly personal and authentic and lead to the development and implementation of student-centered curriculum, allowing staff to make learning meaningful, relevant and personalized.
· Staff creates and supports cooperation and collaboration rather than competition in the classroom.
· Staff supports students’ intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation based on rewards and punishment.
· There is a focus on social justice: the school community recognizes the talents and hopes of all students and actively addresses issues of racism, sexism, classism, homophobia and other issues of discrimination and inequity.
· School norms are well-defined, established by the school community, shared and discussed freely, and modeled by all members of the school community.
· The community, school district staff, program/school staff, families, and students have a clear understanding of and commitment to the school’s mission and objectives.
· There is an emphasis on community-building activities to develop interconnectedness and interdependence.
· Staff and the school administrator recognize and address issues that hinder learning or feeling part of the community, including social skills development, mental health issues, poverty, and abuse.
· Power and decision-making authority are shared in ways that foster leadership skills and self-esteem in all members, create a sense of fairness and equity throughout the community, and nurture the positive relationships among its members.
·
As much as possible, the school staff mirrors the
diversity of the student population.
7. Individualizing Curriculum and Differentiating Instruction
No classroom group of children is so similar that they do their best learning with identical instruction and a single learning activity. Individualized curriculum and differentiated instruction support this understanding of children’s development and learning. In this context, teachers need to take the time to understand the intellectual, developmental, emotional, cultural and social characteristics that make each learner unique, optimizing each child’s learning potential and success.
To cite the “Seattle School Board Vision, Values, Beliefs, Goals and Mission” statement for 2004-05, “Children and youth learn most effectively when teaching and curriculum are relevant to their own backgrounds, interests, and learning styles.”
Indicators:
· Teachers know the developmental, emotional, cultural and social characteristics of their students that make each learner unique.
· Curricular resources, products and activities focus on the learning interests, strengths and style/needs of students.
· Students and teachers collaborate to define learning outcomes and curriculum products.
· Students have opportunities to develop the skills of independent learning.
· Curriculum is integrated, inquiry-based, constructivist and linked to the investigation of projects.
· Teachers seek opportunities to include service learning in the curriculum.
· Fieldwork supports and enriches building-based learning activities.
· Students develop internal motivation to learn by understanding what they need to know and why it’s important.
· Learning draws upon community-based resources and learning experiences beyond the school walls.
· Class configurations loop or are multi-aged.
· Students’ learning is collaborative and interactive.
· Family members are active participants in the classroom.
8. There Are Many Ways to Learn
Learning is about constructing relationships in which students connect with teachers and subjects. It focuses specifically on the needs, talents, learning style, interests, and academic background of each learner and it challenges each learner to grow and advance. The priority is to know students and their families well enough to ensure that every learning experience excites the students to learn more (Littky, 1999).
Much of a teacher’s work is to learn about each student while also creating a safe community that supports all the learners within it. Teachers have high expectations and clear boundaries but do not deal with all students in exactly the same way because that “one-size fits all” approach does not serve all children equally well.
There are many ways to learn and we have emphasized some over others in school contexts. Researchers and practitioners alike have found that there is not one way to learn that is either best or universal, although there are some that are more beneficial in a school context. As a result, some learners are better served, and rewarded, by their school experiences than others.
The idea that we each learn differently is one of the main contributions of the alternative school model.
To cite the “Seattle School Board Vision, Values, Beliefs, Goals and Mission” statement for 2004-05, “Students thrive in an environment that offers a variety of learning opportunities.”
Indicators: Students’ many learning styles are accommodated when curriculum and assessment are
· individualized
· differentiated
· self-paced
· developmental
· flexible
· customized
· providing of alternatives (a variety of different paths) to the same goal that best suit/fit the student
9. Caring and Demanding Teachers
Of all the components involved in an effective alternative school, teachers make the most difference. Teaching in a personalized, child-centered environment requires teachers who are caring, motivating and challenging. The perceptions and expectations of the teacher for the student are among the most important factors in determining student success.
To cite the “Seattle School Board Vision, Values, Beliefs, Goals and Mission” statement for 2004-05, “Students want and need positive relationships with adults, based on mutual respect and high expectations for success, and schools must provide opportunities for those relationships to flourish.”
Indicators: Teachers
· establish relations of care and trust, a relational sense of caring.
· are receptive to the needs and wants of the students.
· develop a rigorous curriculum that builds upon or, at least, includes student interest.
· help students acquire the knowledge and attitudes needed to achieve the students’ goals in addition to the goals of the curriculum.
· learn about students as individuals and about their needs, working habits, interests, and talents to build lessons and plans for their individual progress.
· possess deep knowledge of their subject matter and have a large repertoires of skills to facilitate structured and incidental learning.
· engage in dialogue with students about ethical life and confirm them in developing their best selves.
In serving the mission of the school, scheduling and attendance policies should be designed to meet the needs of students. The school’s flexible schedule allows students to take advantage of resources found within and beyond the school walls.
11. Small
Alternative schools should be small by design to preserve personalized environments and to serve the mission of the school.
12. Clear Mission and Objectives
The mission and objectives of an alternative school go beyond simply academic achievement. An alternative school has a coherent focus, philosophy of education and core values about meeting the intellectual, social, emotional and developmental needs of each child.
Indicators:
· The school’s curriculum is aligned with the school’s focus, philosophy and core values.
· Students, staff and families assist in the creation of the school’s mission and objectives.
· The school community has control over defining the identity of the school’s program.
· School staff, families and students have a clear understanding of the school’s mission and objectives.
· There is a clear way to assess program/school performance based on the school’s focus, philosophy and values.
A. Recommendation—School Board Policy
It is the belief of the Seattle School Board that a strong and vibrant
cohort of alternative schools is essential to the academic achievement and
success of students in the Seattle Public Schools.
Although every school has unique characteristics, alternative schools
have a culture, climate, and pedagogical focus distinct from traditional
schools. Alternative schools have a
mission that goes beyond academic achievement and includes the development of
the whole child. Alternative schools
attract families and students committed to the school’s mission and core values.
Alternative schools recognize and meet the unique learning needs and
styles of each student through opportunities for personal choice; a supportive,
caring and inclusive environment; community-established norms of mutual
respect; an inclusive governance process; a collaborative culture for the
community; and the pioneering of innovative pedagogies.
Rationale:
·
The School Board does not currently have a policy
statement on alternative education.
B. Recommendations—Choice, Equitable Access and Diversity
1. In order to provide choice, equitable
access and diversity for all Seattle families, all alternative schools should
have the option of all-city draw.
2. The District should work with the
alternative school communities to
design cost-effective transportation.
·
Choice is a central value of alternative education.
Because the alternative schools are not interchangeable, students, families and
staff must be able to choose a particular school based on its distinct mission,
culture, philosophy and practices.
·
Equitable access to alternative schools is necessary
for families to have meaningful choice.
·
Alternative schools are strengthened and enriched by
the presence of students and families who represent a cross-section of the
city. This brings both a diverse and
committed population to the school.
C. Recommendation—Continuousness and Availability
In order to provide adequate seats so that students can continue in
and/or enter an alternative school at any grade level, the District should
expand the number of alternative schools in configurations such as K-5, K-8,
K-12, 6-12 and 9-12.
·
Students moving to the next school level should be
given the opportunity to choose a school that is aligned with their previous
educational experience.
·
Many students are on waiting lists for alternative
schools.
D. Recommendations—Student Assignment Information for Families
and Students
1. The District shall educate the student
assignment staff at the Enrollment Service Centers about the identity of each
alternative school and the differences among the alternative schools in order
to provide students and families with objective and accurate information.
2. The District should use the information in
this report for its publications, such as the Choices Booklet, and for other
public documents, such as media articles.
3. The District should strongly encourage
families to acquaint themselves with the alternative school through school
visits, printed material and/or direct conversation with members of the school
community.
4. There should be no mandatory assignments to
an alternative school. However,
students may choose to transfer into an alternative school after the October 31
deadline, if space is available.
·
Families need objective and accurate information about
the alternative schools to make an informed choice on an appropriate placement
for their children.
E. Recommendations—Education Director for Alternative Schools
1.