Certain groups of students are overrepresented at alternative schools—public schools with a disciplinary or academic focus that serve students who have been expelled or suspended from school, or are at risk of educational failure—compared to their enrollment at nonalternative schools. Overall enrollment and discipline of students at these schools dropped between school years 2013-14 and 2015-16, according to GAO’s analysis of Department of Education (Education) data. Declines in White and Hispanic student enrollment accounted for most of the drop. Some groups, such as Black boys and boys with disabilities, were overrepresented in alternative schools, particularly those with a discipline focus, compared to their enrollment at nonalternative schools (see figure). While overall discipline dropped for students at alternative schools, school arrests and referrals to law enforcement went up by 33 and 15 percent, respectively, for Black boys and girls between school years 2013-14 and 2015-16.

Alternative schools have some of the most vulnerable students, but lower percentages of alternative schools have various types of support staff than nonalternative schools. Compared to nonalternative schools in 2015-16, a lower percentage of alternative schools had social workers, nurses, and counselors—support staff who serve different roles in addressing the health, behavioral, and emotional needs of students. For example, 47 percent of nonalternative schools had at least one social worker, compared to 26 percent of alternative schools. In every district GAO visited, officials said students had experienced multiple types of trauma, such as gang violence, death of schoolmates or parents, poverty, or homelessness—consistent with research linking trauma with educational and behavioral challenges—and described various strategies they used to meet student needs despite their staffing challenges.

Students who attend public K-12 alternative schools may be at risk of educational failure for many reasons, including poor grades, disruptive behavior, mental health issues, and other life circumstances. Movement of students in and out of alternative schools can be fluid, with some students attending for a few days to a few years, and some cycling in and out of these schools repeatedly. Support staff, such as school psychologists and social workers, can play a role in supporting students’ health, behavioral, and emotional needs.

GAO was asked to review alternative schools. This report examines what is known about enrollment, discipline, and support staff in alternative schools, among other objectives. GAO analyzed data on alternative schools for school years 2013-14 and 2015-16 from Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (most recent years available); visited selected school districts and alternative schools in Florida, Illinois, and Texas, selected for a mix of types (regular alternative, charter, and juvenile justice) and focuses (disciplinary or academic) of alternative schools; and interviewed federal officials.

In commenting on this report, Education expressed concern that GAO's analysis could confuse readers about whether race/ethnicity and other demographic variables are the cause of disproportionality or are simply correlated. GAO believes this concern is misplaced because the report clearly states that GAO's analysis is descriptive and does not imply causation or make inferences about disproportionality.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Students in public K-12 alternative schools are among some of the most vulnerable populations in schools. These schools serve students that have been expelled or suspended from school, or are at risk of educational failure because of poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, mental health issues, being a teen parent, and other life circumstances. Further, enrollment at alternative schools can be fluid, with some students attending anywhere from a few days to a few years, while others cycle in and out of these schools repeatedly. Alternative schools can be of various types—regular public schools, charter schools, and juvenile justice facilities (i.e., facilities where students are incarcerated). Alternative schools are public and can be operated by a school district or a private company under contract with a school district. They can also have different focuses, such as academic, disciplinary, or both. Alternative schools can vary significantly from school to school in how they operate and how information on students who attend these schools is reported by individual school districts—data that are required to be reported for federal oversight.

You asked us to report on the student population in alternative schools. This report examines what is known about (1) enrollment, discipline, and support staff, such as counselors and psychologists, in alternative schools; and (2) the ways selected school districts report data on alternative schools for federal oversight.

To determine what is known about enrollment, discipline, and support staff in alternative schools, we analyzed the Department of Education’s (Education) Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for the two most recent collections, 2013-14 and 2015-16 school years.[1] CRDC collects a range of information on public schools nationwide, including student demographics (e.g., race, sex, disability), school type, discipline, and staffing. We used Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 2015-16 CRDC definition of an alternative school: “[A] public elementary or secondary school that addresses the needs of students that typically cannot be met in a regular school program. The school provides nontraditional education; serves as an adjunct to a regular school; and falls outside of the categories of regular education, special education, or vocational education."[2] Further, because juvenile justice facilities also address the educational needs of students that cannot be met in a regular school setting, we included in our study all juvenile justice facilities that are reported in the CRDC, whether or not they were identified as alternative schools. [3] For many of our analyses, we compared students at alternative schools with students at nonalternative schools.[4] Results of our analyses are associational and do not imply a causal relationship. We determined these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by reviewing documentation, conducting electronic testing, and interviewing Education officials.

To gather information on what is known about the ways selected school districts report data on alternative schools for federal oversight, we visited seven school districts in three states, Florida, Illinois, and Texas. These states were selected to represent a mix of states with high numbers and proportions of alternative schools, the presence of alternative schools run under contract to private entities, and geographic diversity. We selected school districts and schools for a mix of alternative school type (regular alternative, charter alternative, juvenile justice facility), focus (academic, disciplinary, mixed academic and disciplinary), and location (urban, suburban, rural). Within each state, we visited at least two school districts; within each district, we visited up to four alternative schools. These site visits also served to supplement our CRDC data analysis to provide illustrative examples of schools and the students they serve. Although the results of these site visits are not generalizable to all states or school districts, they provide illustrative examples of how different states and school districts report data on alternative schools to Education as part of its CRDC. See appendix I for more information on our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2018 to June 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Overview of Alternative Schools

According to data from Education’s CRDC, fewer than 1 percent of all public school students attended alternative schools in school year 2015-16 (roughly 369,000 students). Yet these students are among the most vulnerable because they are often on the verge of dropping out, are incarcerated, or were expelled or suspended from their nonalternative schools. Some alternative schools have an academic focus and help students earn credits toward graduation if they are behind in school or if they need to graduate early in order to attend to other necessities, such as working or parenting. Other alternative schools—referred to by some districts as their discipline schools—have a disciplinary focus and serve students who have been suspended or expelled from their nonalternative school. Alternative schools may be operated by school districts themselves or by private for-profit or non-profit entities that contract with the public school districts. These entities are subject to specific contractual obligations. These contractual obligations could include requirements related to services the contractor must provide, performance and accountability standards, and record keeping requirements for purposes of reporting student-level data to the contracting school district. There are various types of alternative schools, including regular public schools (77 percent), charter schools (6 percent), and juvenile justice facilities (17 percent).[5]

Research on Discipline in Schools

In our 2018 report on discipline in K-12 schools, we found that Black students, boys, and students with disabilities experienced disproportionate levels of discipline in school year 2013-14 across all types of schools, including alternative schools.[6] As we reported in 2018, who gets disciplined and why is complex. Studies we reviewed for that report suggest that implicit bias—stereotypes or unconscious associations about people—on the part of teachers and staff may cause them to judge students’ behaviors differently based on the students’ race and sex.[7] The studies showed that these judgments can result in certain groups of students being more harshly disciplined than others. Further, the studies found that the types of offenses that Black children were disciplined for were largely based on school officials’ interpretations of behavior. For example, one study found that Black girls were disproportionately disciplined for subjective interpretations of what constitutes disobedience and disruptive behavior.

Further, a child’s performance and behavior in school may be affected by health and social challenges outside the classroom that tend to be more acute for poor children, including minority children who experience higher rates of poverty, and for those who have experienced trauma.[8] Research shows that experiencing trauma in childhood may lead to educational challenges, such as lower grades and more suspensions and expulsions; increased use of mental health services; and increased involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).[9] Some research has found that youth in juvenile justice facilities report experiencing multiple types and instances of trauma, such as assault, family and community violence, and physical or sexual abuse.[10] For example, in one study of youth involved in the juvenile justice system in New Hampshire and Ohio, 94 percent reported having experienced at least one trauma in their lifetime, and the average number of traumas reported was about five.[11] Other research indicates that creating a positive school climate, including social and emotional learning programming, may lead to more positive academic and behavioral outcomes in schools.[12] Creating a positive school environment can include employing resources to help students develop the social, emotional, and conflict resolution skills needed to avoid and de-escalate problems, and targeting supports to help address underlying causes of misbehavior, such as trauma. School psychologists, social workers, nurses, and counselors can all play a role in supporting the health, behavioral, and emotional needs of students.

Education and Justice Enforcement Responsibilities

Education’s OCR and the Department of Justice’s (Justice) Civil Rights Division and its Office for Civil Rights for the Office of Justice Programs are responsible for enforcing a number of civil rights laws, which protect students from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics.[13] As part of their enforcement responsibilities, both agencies conduct investigations in response to complaints or reports of possible discrimination.[14] Education may also seek to terminate federal funds if a recipient is determined to be in violation of the civil rights laws and the agency is unable to reach agreement with the parties involved.[15] Further, Justice has the authority to file suit in federal court to enforce the civil rights of students in public education.

Additionally, Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) supports local and state efforts to prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. OJJDP sponsors research, program, and training initiatives; develops priorities and goals and sets policies to guide federal juvenile justice issues; disseminates information about juvenile justice issues; and awards funds to states to support local programming. OJJDP supports prevention and intervention programs aimed at helping young people overcome the challenges in their lives and avoid involvement with the justice system. For example, in fiscal year 2015, OJJDP provided more than $77 million in discretionary funding to strengthen mentoring programs across the nation. These programs were focused on addressing the mentoring needs of underserved populations, including tribal youth, youth with disabilities, youth in foster care, and child victims of commercial sexual exploitation.

Education’s OCR also administers the CRDC, a biennial national survey that Education requires nearly all public school districts and schools to complete, and publishes the data and reports on its website.[16] The CRDC survey collects a variety of information on student enrollment, discipline, and staff (such as teachers, psychologists, and counselors), most of which is disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency, and disability. Data for the CRDC are self-reported by school districts, and are based on two different points in the school year. The fall snapshot captures enrollment, student demographics, and school type data as of October 1 or the closest school day to October 1; and the cumulative end of the year count captures data such as school staff and all incidents of discipline for the entire school year. School districts report discipline under six broad categories in Education’s CRDC: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school-related arrests.

K-12 Student Enrollment

Of the more than 50 million students in public K-12 schools in school year 2015-16, about one-half were White and the other half fell into one of several minority groups, with Hispanic and Black students being the largest minority groups, according to CRDC data (see table 1). The number of boys and girls in public schools was almost evenly split. A larger percentage of boys were students with disabilities.

In our 2016 report, we found that schools with a relatively large proportion of students in poverty also tend to have a higher proportion of minority students.[17] As we have reported, over time, there has been a large increase in schools that are the most isolated by poverty and race, and the link between racial and ethnic minorities and poverty is longstanding, and also affects access to a quality education. We also reported in 2018 that students in relatively poor—where 80 percent of students are Black and Hispanic—and small schools had less access to high school courses that help prepare them for college.[18]

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education (Education) and Justice (Justice) for review and comment. Education provided written comments that are reproduced in appendix III. Education and Justice provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

In its written comments, Education detailed what it considered to be limitations with the report’s methodology and conclusions. Specifically, Education said the effects of the demographic variables we used in our analysis─race/ethnicity, sex, and disability─to describe the population of students in alternative schools, are most likely not as powerful as other variables such as socioeconomic status, exposure to trauma and violence, and family and neighborhood characteristics. Education stated that looking at any one factor in the absence of others would likely lead to erroneous results, and could confuse readers about whether race/ethnicity is the cause of the disproportionality or is simply correlated with other causal factors.

We agree that factors correlated with an event do not necessarily cause that event. While limitations exist with any methodology, we believe the limitations related to causality that Education raised are misplaced; we do not imply causation for disproportionality observed within the data we analyzed or make inferences about disproportionality. Our descriptive analyses of these data are consistent with our goal of describing the condition by race/ethnicity, sex, and disability status. Our results showing overrepresentation of certain groups in enrollment and disproportionate discipline are associational and do not imply a causal relationship. While we make no conclusions about our findings, the findings themselves factually describe the enrollment and disciplinary patterns from that data. The approach we took to determining disproportionality is a commonly used, credible method in the literature we reviewed. Education similarly makes descriptive analyses of these data by race/ethnicity, sex and disability publicly available on its website in various publications.[32] For example, Education found that in school-year 2015-16, Black boys and girls made up 15 percent of student enrollment and 31 percent of students referred to law enforcement or arrested.[33]

Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) does not collect data on the variables that the agency proposed that GAO analyze, such as exposure to trauma or violence. Therefore, CRDC data do not allow us to examine the factors Education asserts are likely predictive of enrollment and discipline patterns found in their data. In the background of the report, we provide information from studies that met our standards for methodological rigor and that help explain disproportionate discipline, such as implicit bias and poverty. Nevertheless, to reduce any potential confusion about the descriptive approach to reporting data from the CRDC, we have added additional clarification about our analyses.

Education also noted that the definitions of alternative schools and alternative learning environments vary widely across states, and encouraged us to carefully review and consider this variability, as it raises issues with the report’s methodology and conclusions. We disagree. While there may be definitional differences across states, as Education notes, we used the definition that Education instructs school districts to use as they complete the CRDC to indicate whether or not their school is an alternative school. Further, because juvenile justice facilities also address the educational needs of students that cannot be met in a regular school setting, we included in our study all juvenile justice facilities that are reported in the CRDC, whether or not they were specifically identified as alternative schools.[34] Moreover, as discussed in the report and shown in Table 2, the CRDC data showed similar patterns of overrepresentation at alternative schools for Black boys and girls, Hispanic boys, and boys with disabilities, regardless of the type of school—regular alternative, charter, and juvenile justice facility.

Finally, Education suggested that part of our analysis is based on data reported for seven out of nearly 15,000 school districts. As stated in the draft report on which Education commented, our main analysis relied on data that nearly all school districts reported in the CRDC. Another objective of our study was to determine "the ways selected school districts report data on alternative schools for federal oversight.” For this objective, we visited seven school districts to provide, among other things, illustrative examples of the ways in which districts report data to the CRDC. In the draft report Education reviewed, we clearly state that these examples are not generalizable to all states and school districts.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and the Attorney General. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Robert C. “Bobby” Scott
Chairman
Committee on Education and Labor
House of Representatives

Abbreviations

End Notes