In their studies of students who made the decision to drop out of high school, researchers have examined extensive demographic information and have identified several characteristics that dropouts often demonstrate (Rumberger, 1987). Several indicators of potential school dropouts have included low socioeconomic backgrounds, single-parent families, and parents or siblings who were dropouts (Fernandez & Velez, 1989; Hartnagel & Krahn, 1989; Norwood, 1989; Rumberger, 1983). Of these indicators, Rumberger (1987) concluded that socioeconomic status was the most important factor in predicting dropouts.

Educators often are faced with the challenges of educating children living in poverty (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Students living in poverty often have experienced physical and emotional handicaps, lack of health care, poor nutrition, difficult family conditions, and inner city neighborhoods (Dubow & Luster, 1990). “Home is the most unequal environment in education, and school should be an arena of equity” (Conrath, 2001, p. 82). Students who live in poverty are rarely enrolled in advanced placement classes; conversely, students of wealth are rarely served in at-risk programs. Conrath stated, “Of all the measurable differences between successful and unsuccessful students, in my experience, family income trumps all others” (p. 82).

In addition to poverty, Westheimer, Kahne, and Gerstein (1992) identified two external factors related to the student at-risk of leaving school prematurely: poor attendance and low self-esteem. They cited non-attendance as the most prominent behavioral outcome related to the academic deficiency of these students (Westheimer et al., 1992). Truancy is the act of being unlawfully absent from school (Hale, 1991). Often, students who skip school fall behind in their schoolwork and eventually drop out of school (Martin, Tobin, & Sugai, 2002). Kronick and Hargis (1990) stated that delinquency and truancy were responses to the adolescent’s perceived failure to satisfy social and emotional needs or to achieve a meaningful position within a social context, such as the school. Wood (1991) suggested that students were more likely to attend school if they believed that attending school would satisfy their immediate needs or benefit them in the future.

A primary measurement of school success is attendance. Those students who have problems with truancy are more likely to drop out than are other students (McLaughlin, 1990). Chronic truancy has been documented as a sign of a student disengaging from the learning process and being on the verge of dropping out of school. Attendance could be a good indicator of a student’s motivation and interest in school (Hale, 1991). Truant students demonstrated a lack of commitment to learn because they have not been motivated to attend school on a regular basis. Also, truant students have faced low self-confidence in their ability to succeed in school because their absences have caused them to fall behind their classmates.

Bridgeland, Dilulio, and Morison (2006) reported in a 2006 study that persons who fail to graduate from high school had continual patterns of refusing to wake up to attend school, taking extended lunch breaks, and consistently skipping class. Students reported that each absence made them more unwilling to go back to school. Of the students interviewed, 59% to 65% admitted that they dropped out because they felt they could not catch up with their classmates (Bridgeland et al., 2006).

When compared to academic performance or discipline issues, absenteeism was the highest predictor of course failure (Bridgeland et al., 2006). Absenteeism dramatically increased the likelihood that truant students would drop out of school. Teachers were limited in the amount of attention they could provide to help chronically absent students catch up on the work they had missed. Therefore, students declined in their academic performance and began to view school in a negative light. As a result, students found dropping out easier than catching up (DeKalb, 2003).

Another issue relevant to at-risk students is self-concept. Self-concept develops as people evaluate how they behave in certain situations and how others respond to that behavior. If the behavior and feedback are consistent over time, individuals internalize these behaviors as part of their self (Bracken, 1992). The development of self-concept requires attention to one’s behavior, the specific environment, and the responses one’s behavior evokes in other people. As a child develops, self-concept changes. Greater differentiation of self-concept occurs with age (Crain & Bracken, 1994), and these different domains appear to be influenced by the environment (Cauce, 1987). Marsh (1989) reported that children experience a higher level of self-concept in Grade 6, a drop in Grades 8 through 9, and an increase in Grades 10 through 11 and into young adulthood.

Examining self-concept was important when looking at the characteristics of students at-risk of dropping out of school. Marsh (1990) examined self-concept profiles of adolescents suspended from high school using the Self-Description Questionnaire-II. Marsh determined that the questionnaire categories of Physical Appearance, Opposite-Sex Relationships, Honesty, and Trustworthiness were in the average range for the suspended students. However, Parent Relationships, General Self, and General School Self-Concepts were low for both males and females. Girls’ self-concepts were low for Same-Sex Relationships and Emotional Stability. When examining self-esteem, locus of control, and engagement in at-risk African American and Hispanic students, gender and ethnic differences were present only for self-esteem, with male students having higher average self-esteem than Hispanic students (Finn & Rock, 1997).

The Intercultural Development Research Association’s (2006) attrition study reported that 137,000 Texas students, or 35% of the freshman class of 2002–2003, left school before graduating in the 2005–2006 school year. In the last 20 years, the gap in the holding power of students of various racial and ethnic backgrounds has widened, with attrition rates increasing for Hispanic students and Black students, at the same time decreasing for White students (IDRA).

Researchers have identified educational experiences as the best predictors of dropping out—better than race, poverty, age, gender, and personal circumstances. Although educators often believe dropping out of school to be driven by personal and family circumstances unrelated to schooling, most dropouts exhibit highly predictive educational warning signs (Roderick, 1993). For example, a federal survey revealed that dropouts were twice as likely to cite school-related reasons over family or work-related reasons for leaving school (Berktold, Geis, & Kaufman, 1998), something that held true for all demographic subgroups (Jordan, Lara, & McPartland, 1999).

When young people make the decision to not graduate from high school, they and American society as a whole, face various negative consequences. Simon (1960) proposed a three-phase model of decision processes to describe this decision-making process. These three phases were termed as Intelligence, Design, and Choice. Simon’s Model of the Decision Process Intelligence, which was borrowed from and based upon the military meaning of the same word, involves identifying the need for a decision or searching the environment. This phase describes what happens as students begin to fear that they are not being successful and have little hope of completing their diploma. Simon described that once the environment has been searched and the need for a decision identified, the design phase begins. This phase involves investigating and developing the problem domain and alternatives. Potential dropouts also begin to pursue their alternatives to dropping out which might include the General Education Development certificate (GED) or alternative approaches to schooling. Simon’s final phase is that of Choice, which describes the activity of selecting the most appropriate course of action from the alternatives previously generated. The Choice phase can be related to the point at which students make the decision to drop out, which leads to serious consequences for the student and for society.

Students who leave school prematurely are more likely than high school graduates to become dependent on welfare and other government programs, engage in criminal activities, and experience health problems (Rumberger & Thomas, 2000). In the 1990s, between 347,000 and 544,000 Grade 10 through Grade 12 students left school each year without successfully completing a high school program (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002).

Researchers have pointed out that the negative impact of dropouts on the American economy is as substantial as their impact on the educational field (Rumberger, 1983). Several researchers have concluded that a dramatic increase in unemployment rates occurs as dropout rates increase (Alspaugh, 1998; Croninger & Lee, 2001; Fine, 1986). When students drop out of high school, they severely diminish their chances of obtaining satisfactory jobs. The consequences of students leaving school prematurely are costly to both the individuals and society. For example, dropouts have fewer options for employment and are usually employed in low-skilled, low-paying positions (Martin et al., 2002). These young adults compete for jobs with other adults who have received their high school diplomas. A high school diploma appears to be a societal prerequisite for employment (Lagana, 2004).

Naylor (1989) indicated that dropouts and marginal students were an ever-increasing drain on the economy due to their substandard academic and employability skills. They further stated that corporations have been spending millions for training so that their workers can read and write to perform adequately in entry-level positions. Catterall (1985) reported that over $75 billion in welfare benefits and unrealized tax revenues are lost annually in the United States due to the dropout problem.

Increasing evidence indicated that the United States’ economic well-being is linked directly to three factors: the capability to participate actively in the global economy, the ability to incorporate information technology into the workplace, and the capacity to develop a labor force with the knowledge and skills necessary to operate in an increasingly complex and dynamic work environment (Judy & D’Amico, 1997; Katz, 1992). The last of these three elements, an educated and skilled pool of workers, was the key characteristic that has allowed the United States to progress in a sophisticated global environment. Four-fifths of compensated employment positions were skilled jobs, and applicants who finished high school were more likely to obtain these jobs than applicants who were dropouts (Stringfeld & Land, 2002). Between 1997 and 2001, more than one-quarter of all dropouts were unemployed for one year or longer, compared with 11% of those persons with a high school diploma or GED (Wald & Martinez, 2003).

Fritsch (2005) indicated that dropouts were 72% more likely than graduates to be unemployed. Dropouts made up about half of the heads of households receiving welfare. Fritsch also reported that 75% of prison inmates never earned a high school diploma. In addition, 77% of state prison inmates who did not complete high school or earn their GED returned to prison. Increasing the high school completion rate by 1% for all men ages 20–60 would save the United States $1.4 billion annually in reduced cost associated with crime (Moretti, 2005).

In the United States in 2000, the average income of a person without a high school degree was only $28,974 compared to $45,368 for a person who was a high school graduate and $84,029 for a person with a bachelor’s degree (Murdock, Nazrul, Michael, White, & Pecotte, 2002). Such differences, when experienced over a lifetime, have implications for the quality of life of the individuals involved and for the private and public sector economies (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). Education and its impact on the economic lives of individuals is likely to continue to be an area of concern for both public policy makers and private-sector decision makers (Murdock et al., 2002).

A consequence of dropping out of school often results in the dropout demonstrating “low aspirations, reduced motivation, and a sense of hopelessness” (Harris, 2006, p. 1). Harris also reported that a growing issue of African American youths who have dropped out of school is idleness, which is most often characterized by individuals continuously walking the streets, and routinely doing nothing productive. The year-round idleness rate for Black men varies by age, educational attainment, and geographic location. Idleness rates in 2002 ranged from a low of 18% for those ages 35 to 44 to a high of nearly 42% for those ages 55 to 64. Forty-four percent of Black men with no high school diploma were idle year-round versus 26% of high school graduates and only 13% of those persons with a bachelor’s or higher degree (Sum, Fogg, Magnum, Fogg, & Palma, 2000).

Leaving school early is probably the most studied education problem in the United States (Roderick, 1993). Roderick reported that students who were retained before entering high school were more likely to experience attrition prior to entering high school. These same students were also included in the population of students failing to achieve. Finn (1989) argued that it would be a good thing if educational risk factors turned out to be better predictors because they were alterable, as opposed to status risk factors such as poverty, gender, race, and family background, over which educators had little or no control. Schools must be able to address the alterable variables, and the alternative school setting is an effort to do that.

The majority of children in the United States are educated in traditional public schools (NCES, 2002). Yet many alternatives to traditional public schooling exist and are serving a significant number of students. Some of the available alternatives include charter schools, magnet programs, distance learning programs, home schooling, and private schools (Funkhouser, 2000). These educational options have emerged for many reasons, and in general, advocates have argued that multiple educational models are essential to meeting the needs of all students (Barr & Parrett, 2001; Natriello, McDill, & Pallas, 1990; Young, 1990). Alternative schools and programs have comprised one educational option often designated as a setting for students who have not succeeded in traditional schools.

Kleiner, Porch, and Farris (2002) reported that the number of alternative schools serving students at-risk of school failure has grown significantly over the past decade. According to Hoffman (2001), 3,850 public alternative schools existed in the United States during the 1997-1998 academic year. In 2002, the number increased to nearly 11,000 public alternative schools and programs for at-risk students (Kleiner et al., 2002). Similarly, legislation on alternative schools has increased significantly across the nation. In 1998, researchers reported that 22 states had some form of legislation on alternative schools (Katsiyannis & Williams, 1998). At-risk students were served in over 11,000 alternative schools in the United States in 2003 (NCES, 2003). In the state of Texas, 417 campuses were registered as AECs as of May 19, 2006 (TEA, 2006b).

Scanlon and Mellard (2002) reported factors that pushed students out of school compared to factors that pulled students out of school. Push factors included retention, low academic achievement, and a lack of concern by school personnel. Pull factors were defined as factors that were outside of a school’s influence. Some pull factors included pregnancy, work, peer pressure, and family issues. Fritsch (2005) indicated common reasons that students dropped out of high school. The reasons for dropping out included family breakups, pregnancy, problems with the law, and trouble waking up on time.

At-risk youth require an atmosphere that acknowledges their essential and unique needs for safety, trust, and recovery from many years of failure (Baker, Bridger, Terry, & Winsor, 1997). Researchers have concluded that, because of these needs, alternative education programs should be well founded in psychological theory and supported with sound educational practice (Pianta & Walsh, 1996; Rogers, 1969).

Recently, a controversy developed stemming from the inconsistencies that existed from state to state in methods of reporting dropout rates. In The Harvard Project, researchers tracked the success of groups of students as they moved from Grades 9 through 12 and reported that slightly more than half of the students completed four years of high school (Sunderman & Kim, 2004). However, the districts’ statistics were that more than 75% graduated that year. California schools reported an overall graduation rate of 86.9%, with San Bernardino schools reporting 75.7%. However, using a different measure called the Cumulative Promotion Index (CPI), the Harvard Project calculated California’s graduation rate to be 71%.

Swanson (2005) stated that the CPI indicator is the only method that is able to overcome the technical challenges involved in calculating realistically reliable graduation rates for individual racial and ethnic categories. The CPI approximates the possibility that a student entering the ninth grade will complete high school on time with a regular diploma (Swanson, 2005). It accomplishes this task by representing high school graduation rate as a stepwise process composed of three grade-to-grade promotion transitions (9 to 10, 10 to 11, and 11 to 12), in addition to the definitive high school graduation event (Grade 12 to diploma). Being progressive, the CPI effectively looks forward from the freshman year and estimates the likelihood that a ninth grader from a particular school system will complete high school with a regular diploma in four years. The CPI may be an attractive option for states or districts that are implementing new data collection systems because it provides information about graduation rates that might be incorporated into accountability systems after only a brief time, as opposed to other methods which require 4 to 5 years of data (Swanson).

In a study of the dropout rates of New York City high schools, Gotgaum (2002) documented that large numbers of high school students were leaving New York City public schools without graduating. Some school officials were encouraging students to leave regular high school programs, although the students were still of high school age. More than 160,000 high school students were discharged from 1997–2001 (Gotgaum, 2002). Anecdotal evidence suggested that school administrators forced many of these students out, although students had the legal right to remain in school.

In 2006, The National Center for Education Statistics (2006), in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, released a new measure to estimate the percentage of high school students who graduated on time. This new measure, referred to as the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate, expanded the number of categories that the NCES allowed for identifying high school dropouts and completers in the United States (NCES, 2006). The categories of school dropout and school completion included the event dropout rate, the status dropout rate, the status completion rate, and the average freshman graduation rate. According to the NCES (2006), the definitions of its indicators of school dropout and school completion were as follows:

When successful alternative schooling was not available for students, the consequences often led to students dropping out of school. In the Texas Education Agency’s (2005c) Study of Secondary School Completion and Dropouts, a dropout was defined as “a student who was enrolled in school at some time during the school year, but left school during the school year without an approved excuse” (TEA, 2005b, p. 79). Further, a dropout was also identified as a student who completed the school year but did not return the following year.

In the same study, a student reported to have left school for any of the following reasons was considered a dropout for accountability purposes: (a) a student who left to enroll in an alternative program and was not in compliance with compulsory attendance, (b) a student who left to enroll in an alternative program and was not working toward a General Educational Development (GED) certificate or a high school diploma, (c) a student who left to enroll in college but was not pursuing a degree, (d) a student whose enrollment was revoked because of absences, (e) a student who was expelled for criminal behavior and could return to school but had not, (f) a student who was expelled for reasons other than criminal behavior, (g) a student who left because of low or failing grades, poor attendance, language problems, exit level testing failure, or age, (h) a student who left to pursue a job or join the military, (i) a student who left because of pregnancy or marriage, (j) a student who left because of homelessness or non-permanent residency, (k) a student who left because of alcohol or other drug abuse problems, (l) a student who did not return to school after completing a term in a Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program, or (m) a student who left for another or an unknown reason. This description adopted by Texas educators is different from the definition used at the national level. Cunningham (2007) stated that an on-going issue of accurate coding by counselors, administrators, and clerks to identify the reason accurately that a student left school is a challenge for the accuracy of the state data collection system.

However, the discipline alternative school was only one category of alternative education programs that evolved after the turn of the century. Smith (1974) defined a public alternative school as a campus that offered families a choice for their students to receive alternative learning experiences at no additional cost. Young and Clinchy (1992) stated that alternative schools usually offered programs that were created to serve a targeted population such as dropouts, teenage parents, and students with a vocational or career orientation.

Raywid (1999) separated the population of alternative schools into three categories based upon their proposed purpose: (a) programs that focused on student performance and addressed those students who needed another chance, (b) programs that changed the educational setting and included flexible scheduling, electives specific to the trades, and smaller student-to-teacher ratios to provide more individualized instruction, and (c) programs that endeavored to change the educational system as a whole. These programs operated using the school-within-a-school concept and incorporated grouping so that adults could address specialty areas within student groups.

Lange (1998) also discussed three categories of alternative schools. They included: (a) Type I programs which were described as magnet schools and schools of choice with programmatic themes and varied methods of instructional delivery, (b) Type II programs which focused less on academics and more on behavior modification because students were placed there by court order due to disciplinary issues, and (c) Type III programs for students who needed social or academic remediation.

School characteristics that boost the ability to keep students in school fell into two broad categories—supportive environments and academic challenge. More specifically, researchers found that students who attended high schools that had enrollments lower than 1,500 had better interpersonal relationships among students and adults, had teachers who were more supportive of students, and had a more focused and academically rigorous curriculum. These students tended to drop out at lower rates (Croninger & Lee, 2001; DeLuca & Rosenbaum, 2001; Lee & Burkam, 2003).

A student’s view of the school setting has been described in the literature as the link between the decision to stay in school or to drop out before graduation. Yet, as alternative education programs have evolved and matured, they have provided lessons not only about how to reconnect with disenfranchised youth, but also how regular schools can avoid disconnection in the first place. As Raywid (1994) pointed out, "many of the reforms currently pursued in traditional schools—downsizing the high school, pursuing a focus or theme, students and teacher choice, making the school a community, empowering staff, active learner engagement, authentic assessment—are practices that alternative schools pioneered” (p. 26).

The positive impact of attending a school with a supportive environment has been related to student success. Croninger and Lee (2001) reported that, other things being equal, high schools whose teachers were highly supportive of students managed to cut the probability of dropping out nearly in half. The finding held equally true for students at low, medium, and high risk of dropping out.  On the other hand, academic challenge also seemed to play a large role in student success, which may have surprised many observers in and outside of schools who believed there could be no trade off between higher academic rigor and better graduation rates (Roderick, Allensworth, & Nagaoka, 2004).

Lee and Burkam (2003) reported that high schools offering more focused and rigorous curriculum, composed of mainly academic courses with very few remedial or non-academic courses, had significantly higher graduation rates than school with different offerings. In fact, for every two additional math courses that high schools offered below the level of Algebra I, students experienced more than a 30% increase in the odds of dropping out. Lee and Burkam (2003) concluded, "This finding flies in the face of those who say that high schools must offer a large number of undemanding courses to keep uncommitted students in school" (p.112).

The NCES (2002) reported that 39% of public school districts administered at least one alternative school or program for at-risk students during the 2000–2001 school year. Nationwide in 2002, alternative high schools served approximately 280,000 students who were at-risk of failing or dropping out of regular high school or who had been expelled from school (Escobar-Chaves et al., 2002). These at-risk students were served in over 11,000 alternative schools in the United States in 2003 (NCES, 2003). In the state of Texas, 417 campuses were registered as AECs as of May 19, 2006 (TEA, 2006a).

The phrase alternative school often held a negative implication, but, in recent years, the phrase suggested student options or a second chance rather than compulsory, involuntary schooling (McGee, 2001). The second chance option combined the philosophies of alternative programs and school choice and offered another opportunity to those who were failing in the traditional system (Lange, 1998).

The effectiveness of an alternative school program depended upon the characteristics of its at-risk students. Learning cannot be isolated from psychosocial and affective characteristics; thus, constructs such as self-esteem and self-concept of at-risk students needed to be considered (Nunn & Parish, 1992). Nunn and Parish examined the differences between high school students, both those at-risk for school failure and a control group, and found statistically significant differences in self-concept, locus of control, and personal styles of learning between the two groups. The results showed that an at-risk student held a more negative self-concept and a more external locus of control than a student in the comparison group. At-risk students were also less motivated toward achievement, had lower self-concept as learners, and desired a more informal and nontraditional approach to learning than non at-risk students.

Other researchers have studied how schools may impact graduation rates (Swanson, 2005; Toenjes, 1989). Interestingly, just as with individual risk factors, certain school characteristics that were adjustable, such as curriculum and teacher-student relationships, turned out to have a much bigger impact on school completion than factors beyond the control of educators, such as the demographic makeup of the student body and whether a school is public or private (Lee & Burkam, 2003).