Download a PDF version

Nearly one third of our nation’s youth are dropping out of high school, according to recent studies by the Urban Institute and the Manhattan Institute. The high percentage of young people leaving traditional education systems necessitates that states and localities develop viable education options and alternative pathways to a high school diploma, yet programs designed to serve this population often face barriers in accessing stable funding. These programs must navigate through complex funding systems and operate within a variety of frameworks that differ in flexibility on a state-by-state basis. Uncertainty around sustainability creates untenable limitations.

A 1996 National Conference of State Legislatures report shows that while most states do not prohibit programs and schools outside of public school systems from accessing state education funds, it is still difficult for programs and schools to tap into these funds and is encouraged in just a small number of states.

This report concluded that there are no states that prohibit alternative education programs from accessing state per-pupil funding. Yet, there are not many clear examples of states encouraging those programs to do so and there is limited information at the state level regarding what programs are accessing the funding.

What is Alternative Education?
According to a 2004 National Youth Employment Coalition scan of state definitions of alternative education as defined in the state statutes there currently is no standard definition for alternative education and the language states are using to define and describe alternative education varies widely.

More often than not, alternative education is considered the main option for students with disciplinary issues. In every state, suspended or expelled students are referred to alternative education programs. In many states, students who are experiencing academic difficulties may also be referred to these programs. In approximately 50% of the states, gifted students or students who learn “differently” are served by alternative education programs. Three themes emerged in the language used to define and characterize alternative education:  

• Strong Academic Focus

• Strong Discipline/ Behavior Modification Focus

• Neutral Focus on Different/ Alternative Learning Options.

Creative Funding is Possible NYEC examined how some alternative education schools and programs have been able to tap into per pupil education funding and provide more comprehensive services to disadvantaged youth through a variety of state and local mechanisms and policies, which are outlined below:  

• Creating a state statute that enables the establishment of a state program allowing funding to follow “at-risk” students.

• Enabling school districts to award credit based on proficiency and competency.

• Viewing alternative schools as programs rather than schools. As a result, in some cases schools are not held to all NCLB accountability standards.

• Permitting all or part of a public school to be converted to a community or charter school, with the intent to better serve the needs of at-risk youth.

• Designating Charter Schools as their own Local Education Agency (LEA).

• Offering multiple charter granting authorities
  

• Providing support and networks for alternative schools serving at risk youth.

• Ensuring representation of an alternative school on the state board of education.

• Developing an education accountability system that is compliant with both state and federal requirements that also recognizes progress over time of all students based on academic levels at entry, whereby schools do not fail if students have demonstrated substantial growth.
  

Where the Problem Lies
While it is possible for alternative education schools and programs to tap into state and local funds, it is often a complex process that is difficult to navigate. Even after schools and programs are able to access funds, they face many challenges such as:

• Sustainability of Funding. In some cases, funding must be renegotiated every year, making it difficult to develop plans and projections.
  

• Private Funding. As some schools are able to access public funding, the private fundraising market has become less sympathetic.
  

• Equity. In some cases, youth are generating the same amount of money for the district, but receive fewer resources.
  

• Charter schools. Charter schools often receive less money from the district than traditional schools.

Ultimately, accessing funds for alternative education pathways is far more than a funding issue, but really part of a new approach to public education designed to meet the needs of all students. This approach includes a diverse set of delivery systems and stakeholders, which often fosters tension between innovation and maintaining the status quo. Yet examination and analysis of viable examples of schools, programs, and policy mechanisms demonstrate that new approaches to public education can be achieved. Continued encouragement and support of collaborations among educational systems, workforce systems, and community based partners is essential.

For more information see the National Youth Employment Coalition website at www.nyec.org