c and nonacademic behavior; (b) flexible curriculum that places emphasis on functional academic, social, and daily living skills; (c) effective and efficient instructional strategies; (d) transition programs and procedures that link the alternative program to mainstream educational settings and the larger community; (e) comprehensive systems for providing students both internal alternative educational services and external community-based services and lastly; (f) appropriate staff and adequate resources to serve students with disabilities. Similarly, Fitzsimons Hughes et al. (2006) singled out six core characteristics that distinguish alternative programs from more traditional educational programs. These characteristics include: (a) a comprehensive student evaluation and referral system; (b) an educational program that is aligned with student real-world expectations and that reflects various nontraditional teaching and learning options; (c) programming that promotes social, emotional, and behavioral change within a safe, positive and nonpunitive environment; (d) ongoing staff training and development; (e) polices and practices that support student transition from a more to a less restrictive environment (e.g., mainstream campus, job placement, alternative educational setting) and finally; (f) ongoing program evaluation and data based decision making.
A significant overlap is evident between characteristics identified by Fitzsimons Hughes and her colleagues (2006) and Quinn and Rutherford (1998). In addition, few would dispute the legitimacy of any of these attributes. However, the dearth of wide scale investigations of some of these variables represents a major obstacle to the growth of quality alternative programs.
Obstacles to research on alternative schooling. One obstacle to ensuring children and youth quality services is that few empirical studies have been conducted that squarely address the question of what constitutes quality alternative schooling. Researchers have mainly examined student satisfaction and self-esteem; others have shared anecdotal reports on efforts to serve children and youth in alternative settings (Lehr & Lange, 2003). One of the challenges to conducting rigorous research stems from the fact that alternative programs serve extremely homogeneous populations of children and youth in extremely diverse settings. Furthermore, alternative schools serve especially ideographic functions. Students enrolled voluntarily in a remedial day school program may bear little resemblance to adjudicated delinquents in a secure facility. Research conducted in the former setting would have limited applicability in the latter facility. Another challenge relates to the fact that daily demands associated with program operation pose myriad challenges, some of which may be at odds with research designed to “capture the richness of what some alternative programs offer” (Lahr & Lange, 2003, p. 63). Finally, longstanding evidence shows that changes in the child or adolescent and in the environment to which the child or adolescent returns influences the level of adjustment to home and community (Lewis, 1982; 1988). That incongruous reality can pose a problem for conducting outcome-based studies on alternative educational programs.
Paraphrasing language of a recent Carnegie Foundation report (2005), alternative education is no place for modest ambitions. For children or adolescents placed in alternative settings, time is unforgiving (Sugai, 1998) as their number of positive life changes diminish daily. If educators and administrators, and other concerned professionals are to better serve this population of children and youth, we must (a) examine critically the current practices, (b) discard those practices for which no empirical evidence exists to support their efficacy, and (c) replace these practices with what works. Given the limited amount of empirical research available to educators, administrators, and all the other varying individuals involved with the care of these children, the need exists to draw upon a mix of exper