Talk it up!

We are still trying to get the US Department of Education to pay attention to the fact that Oklahoma Statewide Alternative Education programs work and that people in Washington DC, who have never seen a single one of these programs, shouldn't be allowed to decimate them.

If you're concerned about this issue, talk to people about it. Write your local newspaper. The more people that communicate with policymakers, the better. Here are some talking points:

• In 1995, the Oklahoma State Legislature created the statewide alternative education program. The program has been exceptionally successful in recovering former dropouts, providing personalized education for high-risk youth, and reducing Oklahoma’s dropout rate.
• Each of the 250+ programs is evaluated by an independent evaluation agency (OTAC). The statewide program is also evaluated annually, using a quasi-experimental design. Anyone can find last year's statewide evaluation here.
• After spending a decade building an effective system, we in Oklahoma would hate to see it dismantled because of a well-intentioned provision of NCLB.
  
• Oklahoma’s alternative education program is precisely the kind of program the Department advocates: research-based, accountable schools of choice. They are not “alternative discipline” programs that are common in other states. They must meet 17 criteria set out in state law; in addition, they must demonstrate effectiveness. If not, they are not recommended for continued funding.
  
• These programs are facing some specific challenges in certifying each alternative education teacher as a highly qualified teacher (HQT). This is especially true in rural programs, in which one or two teachers are responsible for the entire curriculum. To be "highly qualified," they would have to be certified (or fill out HOUSSE forms or professional development plans) for as many as 17 different areas! They have more HOUSSE forms than they have students!
  
• This is not only excessive, it's onerous. More importantly, it's a barrier to getting good teachers to teach in alternative education programs.
• The traditional school isn’t working for these students. They may be former dropouts; they may work during the day to support families; they may have parents who fight all night; they may have developed a habit of skipping school; they may have substance abuse problems or be in trouble with the law; or they may have difficulty interacting with others. Some are in the programs as an alternative to suspension, but others are better described as “Macintosh kids in an IBM school system.” They can do great things, but not in traditional school settings.
• The research shows that the teacher is the critical variable. In order to meet the HQT requirements of NCLB, we would have to disband this system in favor of one in which a different teacher worked with these students each hour. If this were to happen, there would be little point in continuing Oklahoma’s award-winning statewide alternative education program. These programs simply don’t work unless the teachers and students build productive relationships. Our fine alternative education system would revert to something more like a “sweathog class.” In many cases, these students would be assigned to “online learning” programs in which there is little student-teacher interaction – in such programs, the students are essentially asked to teach themselves.
• Here's what we propose: All alternative education teachers in Oklahoma (who are certified in accordance with state law) will be presumed to meet the criteria for HQT as long as the independent evaluation of their programs shows them to be effective. It is an output model rather than an input model. In other words, if the students in the program are successful, the teacher is presumed to be qualified.