Systemic Interventions with Alternative School Students: Engaging the Omega Children.

Alternative school placement continues to be a final option for many students who have experienced ongoing academic and behavioral difficulties. As the majority of these students tend to be at-risk for school failure and truancy, it is critical that during alternative school placement opportunities are afforded to reconnect or engage these youth. This article explores options for increasing multisystemic engagement and support for students in alternative school placements. Systemic Interventions 3 Systemic Interventions With Alternative School Students: Engaging the Omega Children Our challenge is not to educate the children we used to have or want to have, but to educate the children who come to the schoolhouse door. –H. G. Wells At-risk students in alternative school placements are a rapidly growing population in the educational system. As recently as 2001, it was reported that over 10,900 alternative programs existed in the United States with 612,900 primary and secondary students enrolled (U. S. Department of Education, 2002). In 2006 a study conducted by the Urban Institute found that the number of students placed in alternative education continues to grow (Aron, 2006). Students may be placed in these programs as a result of being considered at-risk for academic failure due to poor grades, drug use or possession, truancy, disruptive behavior, possession of a weapon other than firearm, pregnancy, disengaged or other identified risk factors (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002; Oregon Department of Education, 2007; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2008). Moreover, a large number of these students are also identified as having emotional or behavioral disabilities (Hughes & Adera, 2006). Issues that can further confound these students’ ability to achieve academic success can also include family disengagement from the school setting, low levels of positive school engagement due to poor school climate and poor student-teacher relationships (Amatea & West-Oatunji, 2007). These students’ needs not only include aid towards achieving academic success, but also reengaging the social support systems around them that can help them to achieve said success, namely parents/caregivers and school personnel. Systemic Interventions 4 Because of these students’ specialized needs, professional school counselors (PSCs) should be prepared to intervene systemically with schools, families, and peer groups in order to ameliorate students’ overall academic and social functioning. This article will describe a brief history of alternative schools, the authors’ conceptualization of the systemic school relationship and some systemic interventions that PSC’s can use in the alternative schools setting. Alternative Education Alternative education programs were initially developed in the early nineteenth century, but did not gain widespread notice until the 1960’s and 1970’s. The purpose behind these nontraditional schools was to provide an innovative and unique way to educate students who did not respond to traditional forms of education (Miller, 1995). Unfortunately, for three consecutive years preceding their report, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2002) found that a majority of school districts in their study had a higher demand for students to be placed in alternative school placement than they had capacity for. This is one indication that enrollment in such placements continues to increase and is beyond the current available services. In addition, public policy interest in alternative schools appears to be increasing, as now nearly every state has legislation regarding these schools (Lehr, Moreau, Lange, & Lanners, 2004). Much like their traditional counterparts, alternative education takes place in school buildings, utilizes the same subjects, and depends on a hierarchy of school personnel and administrators to function (Foley & Pang, 2006; Raywid, 1994). However, these schools are marked by a disproportionate number of students who are minorities, live at or below the poverty level, and tend to be concentrated in urban areas (United States Systemic Interventions 5 Department of Education, 2001). To further confound the situation, alternative schools are often over crowded, take place in motley facilities (such as juvenile detention centers or community centers), and have high rates of staff who are not properly licensed to teach to students’ needs (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002). Raywid (1994) created a three-tiered typology of alternative schools. Type one schools are those that students wish to attend, and are generally flexible and autonomous paths towards a high school diploma or GED. Type two schools are characterized by their focus on discipline and segregating the problematic few from the mainstream classroom. These schools are often considered “last chance” schools in which students are forcibly placed. Finally, type three schools are designed for students with more severe emotional and social issues, and as a result they provide access to counseling and social services along with academic support. The alternative schools germane to this article are type two, those that have been established for forced placement of students with behavioral--mainly disciplinary problems. As discipline is the main focus of these institutions, there is a concentrated interest in helping students build specific skill sets, such as anger management and behavior modification. Consequently, children placed in this type of alternative education setting often come with a set of stigmas attached to them. As Van Acker (2007) stated, “placement of these children within the alternative school setting is thought to protect the majority of the students from the dangerous behavior of the few. ” (p. 6). This quote illustrates the perception that educators, and the community at large, may hold for these students, that they are dangerous and unpredictable individuals in need of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, statistics on alternative school Systemic Interventions 6 students may also support this opinion. These non-traditional students are more likely than their traditional counterparts to drop-out of school (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005; Scott, Nelson, Liaupsin, Jolivette, Christle, & Riney, 2002) Furthermore, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (2001) reports that 82% of the adult prison population and 85% of juvenile justice cases are comprised of school drop-outs. These circumstances have led to a phenomenon that Christle and colleagues have provocatively referred to as the “school to prison pipeline” (p. 69). Perceptions held in society about these students often trickle down into the microcosm of the school classroom. Within the classroom, a caste-like system can be formed, where certain students may be more socially dominant, or popular, within a hierarchy that is difficult to vertically navigate. One study found that those students who attain lowest social ranks are not accepted by peers, can experience long lasting repercussions, such as low academic achievement and poor socialization and behavioral problems (Garnica, 1981). Students placed in alternative schools may have displayed dangerous behaviors; they may also have been acting out in reaction to their relegation in low social dominancy rank within their previous class (Blum, 2005). The term “omega” is used herein because it describes the lowered status or last place rank of these individuals when compared to others. Due to their negative school experiences, these “omega children” can suffer long-term impediments in their academic and social development (Garnica, 1981). However, behavioral outbursts and poor peer acceptance are just a few of the many reasons that students are placed in alternative schools. The overarching issue that students face is a breakdown in the systemic school relationship, a term used in Systemic Interventions 7 this article to encapsulate the various relationships that students must negotiate in their everyday experiences at school. Examples include relationships with teachers, administrators, peers, parents, and members of the greater community that interact with the school. In order to effectively intervene with these students, multi-systemic concerns should be addressed. The Systemic School Relationship The systemic paradigm was chosen as a framework for this article because it lends to a more holistic understanding of how individual human interactions can have a profound effect on groups of people. A systemic approach has potential to be one of the most effective methods of programmatic change as it is marked by “proactive, contextual strategies that emphasize the construction of new, interlocking behaviors among all members of social networks and organizational communities,” (Erickson, Mattaini & McGuire, 2004 p. 104). In this case, the use of an ecological model is important because it takes into account the multilayered needs of alternative school students (Roach & Kratochwill, 2004). Further, according to the American School Counselor Association’s National Model (2005), professional school counselors (PSCs) work to remove barriers that impede student success; PSCs do so by working on multiple levels including interventions with caregivers/ parents, teachers, administrators, and community partners to increase student achievement. In effect, the systemic school relationship is simply a magnification of Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) microsystem level of the ecological model. In its original context, proponents of the theory of social ecology posited that individuals are influenced by four interactive levels that build upon each other. The microsystem Systemic Interventions 8 encapsulates individuals’ functioning, their family systems, as well as their school and community life. The mesosystem refers to the interface between individuals’ microsystem and exosystem. The exosystem are larger systems that af