, and socioeconomic backgrounds (e.g., Lehr & Lange, 2003; Skiba & Peterson, 2000, 2003; Townsend, 2000).
Over time, there has been a significant increase in the number of alterative schools. This increase includes: charter schools; court schools; detention schools; magnet schools; day treatment and educational centers; residential schools; schools-without-walls; alternative learning centers; and second chance schools, to mention a few (Fitzsimmons Hughes et al., 2006; Quinn & Rutherford, 1998). The clientele run the gamut from students identified as gifted and talented to students that have engaged in multiple acts of aggression.
Estimates regarding the number of alternative programs for children and youth vary widely, ranging from 10,900-20,000 (cf. Kleiner, Porch, & Farris, 2002; Lehr & Lange, 2003). Conservatively speaking, these alternative schools serve well over 600,000′students. That number does not include the 20,000 adolescents that desperate parents and exasperated judges annually place in so-called “tough love” programs (Tough Love Programs, 2006, p. 12). Nor do we know how many other programs function as “interim alternative educational settings” (IAES) as school divisions seek to meet requirements regarding students with disabilities subjected to disciplinary actions pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (Peterson & Smith, 2002).
Characteristics of alternative schools. Notwithstanding their growing popularity, little unanimity is apparent regarding what constitutes an alternative school. Raywid (1994) discussed three types of alternative programs. One type was an innovative school, designed to be more humane, challenging, and engaging than the traditional education programs. The second type of alternative program represents last chance schools to which students are assigned or sentenced. Usually, these programs constitute one last chance before student expulsion and placement in a more restrictive setting. The third type is the remedial school that is intended for those students in need of academic and social or emotional remediation or rehabilitation. Remedial schools reflect the belief that, with proper treatment, students would be able to be reintegrated into mainstream educational settings. Quinn and Rutherford (1998) posit that innovative schools are committed to adapting to the individual needs of the students, whereas last chance and remedial schools seek to “fix the student who is broken” (p. 16). According to Lehr and Lange (2003), during the 1980s, alternative programs mainly focused on remediation, whereas the political climate of 1990s rekindled interest in programs for chronically disruptive children and youth and those suspended or expelled from school.
Fitzsimons Hughes and her colleagues (2006) recently sought to distinguish among alternative educational programs and identified three different types of settings, each of which serves a specific population of children and youth. Type 1 settings mainly serve gifted or advanced students, special education students, students who have engaged in substance abuse (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, or drugs), students who are pregnant, and students with a history of truancy. Type 2 settings primarily serve students, on a short-term basis, that pose serious discipline problems. Many times, these students with discipline problems are court-mandated to attend these schools due to serious behavioral infractions that occurred in their home school. Last, Type 3 settings are designed to be therapeutic in nature and to serve children and adolescents that have been diagnosed as having serious emotional or behavioral problems. Given the disparate philosophical and programmatic emphasis of these programs, both the motive behind placement and the subsequent impact on students’ attitude and behavior is likely very different (Lehr & Lange, 2003).
Quinn and Rutherford (1998) identified six components they judged essential to quality alternative programs. These components include: (a) procedures for conducting functional assessment of academi