Guiding Principles For Specific
Program Types
Guiding Principles for Specific Program Types
(PDF)
Also see
Guiding
Principles for Alternative Education
A balanced
availability of effective prevention, short-term interventions and
long-term interventions is necessary to have an impact on a wide range
of at-risk students – all with slightly different needs. The following
definitions represent the different approaches that can be implemented
to address these needs along with descriptions of their strengths,
weaknesses, and target audiences.
Prevention
This approach does not target specific students; rather it assumes that
everyone in the student population needs to be “inoculated” against emerging
problems. The critical distinction between prevention and intervention is that
prevention programs are implemented before problems arise and do not target
selected individuals. Prevention involves the multiple strategies put in place
within “feeder” schools that aim to deter placements in alternative education
programs and other more restrictive environments.
Example:
Providing all students in a given school with drug and alcohol resistance
training; or, sending periodic parenting tips homes to all of the parents in a
school regardless of the behavior exhibited by their child.
Strengths:
Targeting needs before they become
problems is inherently wise. Prevention activities are typically less
expensive per child because they usually involve less intensive interactions
for shorter periods of time. Prevention activities provide opportunities to
focus on increasing assets and building strengths rather than highlighting
deficits and isolating weaknesses.
Weaknesses:
Resources are sometimes wasted if
the majority of participants do not “need” to address a specific issue. The
impact of prevention programs is hard to document, especially if they involve
early prevention activities for behaviors that will not emerge until much
later in the lives of young people (Example: The effectiveness of career
development activities with elementary school students is not definitive until
they are old enough to have a career.)
Effective
Approaches:
Universal prevention approaches that have
proven to be effective in preventing antisocial and disruptive behavior
include 1) improving school climate and classroom management practices,
2) cognitive-behavioral approaches that build prosocial interaction skills and
behaviors, and 3) parent education and training. Other prevention approaches
should be used with care and regularly evaluated for effectiveness. Promising
approaches include those that build strengths and increase the availability of
developmental assets. Prevention efforts are not effective with children and
youth already experiencing or exhibiting a multitude of problems.
Secondary
Prevention and Short-Term Interventions
This approach (as defined in reporting protocols
for Alternative Education Challenge Grant) includes programs that focus on
targeted students for five days or less. These programs are often alternatives
to, or substitutes for, suspensions and expulsions. Many of these programs
create special learning environments for students. Often these environments
are not in the same physical location as the student’s regular school. These
strategies rely, most importantly, on the mainstream schools to be a part of
the intervention. As such, effective short-term interventions include
follow-up transitional supports for students upon re-entry into the “feeder”
schools.
Example:
Multiple school districts send
students to a physical location for 3-5 days in lieu of suspending them for
disruptive behavior in the classroom. Students focus on academics and are made
aware of a range of services and activities designed to help promote more
prosocial behavior.
Strengths:
These approaches can play an important
role in alternative education. Their effectiveness depends upon what happens
during the relatively short period of time the students are in the program
(the elements of effective programming are listed below), as well as what
happens upon re-entry into the students’ mainstream school. These programs are
popular because students who otherwise would have been unsupervised in the
community (while out on suspension or expulsion) are now actively engaged in a
learning environment. Students may not fall behind in their academic work if
they are given an opportunity to complete assignments in alternative education
settings. They also provide teachers and school staff an often needed break
from certain challenging students. In addition, first time offenders can be
identified and a remediation strategy developed without full-blown
interventions.
Weaknesses:
The short period of time that students
are in the program does not allow for building new skills. Some programs
become expensive yet ineffective alternatives to in-school suspension.
Problems are simply moved off-site. Further, follow-up post placement is
difficult because it often depends on the “feeder” school that originally
referred the student to the short-term placement. Little communication between
the “feeder” school and the alternative education staff often occurs; and real
strategies aimed to support students upon re-entry are rarely put in place.
Without these transitional supports, the alternative short-term placement
serves primarily as a “holding pen.” The real issues behind the student’s
placement are often not systematically addressed.
Effective
Approaches: Effective programs
recognize that contact time is limited and efficiently use this time. These
programs should include a focus on comprehensive and sustainable support,
assessment and transitions back into “regular” school environments.
Comprehensive and sustainable support can be achieved by connecting students
with available mental health, drug and alcohol, and juvenile justice services.
Student assessments of 1) history of problem behaviors, 2) family background,
and 3) individual mental health profile can be extremely useful in developing
a sustainable program that will impact the life course of students. Creating
supportive environments that will serve as follow-up support for students once
they leave the short-term program is essential to the sustainability of any
progress made in these programs. These strategies should be guided by the
assessment process. Programs that replicate traditional in-school suspension
in an off-campus location will be ineffective. This ineffectiveness will be
most obvious if the program has a singular goal of keeping students from
falling behind in their homework. Others are ineffective if their only goal is
to enhance overall attendance at school by “counting” students present at the
placement as present at school for that day. Short-term programs are not
likely to be effective with students who have a long, complex history of
problem behavior and are already fully engaged with multiple intervention
agencies.
Long-Term Interventions
This approach involves intensive work with
students in alternative settings over much longer periods of time. While the
Alternative Education Challenge Grant Program is currently defining any
intensive, “pull-out” program that lasts over five days as being long-term,
most of those programs referred to as long-term are serving high-risk youth
for months at a time. Typically students enter a long-term alternative
education program at some point during the academic year and remain in that
program until year’s end. These programs may or may not be voluntary
alternatives for students.
Example:
A yearlong middle school program is
made available for students who are struggling academically and are unengaged
in their regular school. As a result of their lack of interest in school,
their behavior becomes disruptive and they are given the option of attending
the alternative school. Once they decide to attend this program, they remain
in the program through the end of the school year.
Strengths:
These programs provide an extended
period of time to build skills in an environment that may be smaller and more
personalized than the regular school environment. In addition, multiple
services can be provided (and coordinated) for extended periods of time.
Programs that have the ultimate goal of re-entering students back into their
mainstream “feeder” schools are most cost-effective.
Weaknesses:
Expense can be an issue in programs
of this type. Furthermore, students can become dependent upon the additional
support and find it difficult to transition back into a less nurturing
environment. Programs are often not implemented with the goal of re-entry into
the mainstream. Environments can be created that are not replicable in other
settings into which students transition.
Effective
Approaches:
Effective approaches include all of those
mentioned in prevention and short-term programs, plus a comprehensive emphasis
on building new skills. Acquiring new skills leads to greater confidence and
self-esteem. Long-term programs must focus on developing skills that will
generalize into the next environment that the student will face. Only skills
that generalize to multiple environments will be sustained. For example,
skills for surviving in boot camps do not generalize well to less structured
environments. Consequently, boot camp type approaches have had little
sustainable impact on the behavior of participants. Individualized
instruction, coupled with coordinated mental health, juvenile justice, and
drug and alcohol services can have a sustained impact if the skills and
support systems they develop carry over into new student environments.
Generalization to multiple environments and the overall effectiveness of these
approaches is enhanced by extensive inclusion parents in the intervention
being implemented. Some of the most effective interventions in this category
are parent-focused.
