Intranet

Site Map

Characteristics of Private Alternative Education Programs

(Prepared by Jan VanderTuin) At this time these programs are the only example of privately operated, publicly- funded schools and as such have distinct characteristics. The primary characteristic of these programs is that their teaching methods are often "out of the box". These programs exist because they have a very high success rate working with youth unable to learn in traditional schools. They can serve as prototypes for all publicly-funded schools. These programs are referral dependent, thereby allowing for little youth diversity. This is contrary to the spirit of public education. Most of the youth are male, termed "at-risk" and are usually economically challenged. By lumping together at-risk students, the success of these programs is threatened. According to State law, these programs should be a valid choice for all students. They should not exist exclusively as a last resort for public schools under stress. These programs have many points of inequity compared to other publicly-funded schools. This is ironic, considering that they are working with many of the most difficult youth in the community. A few examples: They receive 80% of the district's net operating costs (the minimum allowable). There is no transparent budget available as to how the other 20% is spent (numbers should at least back up the arguments for lower funding). They must provide their own facilities and maintain them. They are unable to generate public funding for facilities as are other public schools. They are not included in district bond measures. They are not included in district economies of scale (i.e., quantity discounts through joint purchasing). They have much higher costs for insurance and Worker's Compensation. They aren't included in district retirement plans. Presently, there isn't equal dissemination of information for parents and students about these programs compared to other publicly-funded options. They aren't equally represented at registration time. Programs are essentially on their own and are seldom included in inservice opportunities, curriculum development processes, educational resource development, and funding initiatives like grant writing. They are not in the loop in terms of receiving information. For example, many programs are just now learning that they can receive funding for food service and transportation (unfortunate, considering the economic status of the youth served). It is possible but difficult to crossover youth between private alternative programs and district schools. Yet youth have benefited greatly when this has occurred. They don't have access to capital like other schools in the district (An example of what can be done is the case of the Bethel School District providing loans to the private alternative program Bethel Family Technology and Resource Center). As the district refers the majority of youth enrolled in private alternative programs, there is a dependency on the district, which at times creates a reluctance to ask for equity. Although district staff does advocate for placement, presently there is no one serving as a distinct advocate for private alternative programs. This could be due to the fact that these programs are often times treated as competitors to limited resources (ironic, considering the need that these programs fill), rather than welcomed partners. On a positive note: over the last year many of the characteristics that have been problematic for these programs are starting to be addressed. For example: consistent forms, streamlining course credit procedures, and meetings between the district and program representatives.

| Schools of the Future | Site Map | Search 

---

Please send comments or questions to the 4J Web Team.
200 North Monroe Street - Eugene, Oregon, 97402 Phone: 541-687-3123
Last updated: December 28, 1999
Copyright © 1999 Eugene School District 4J