National and state education policies continue to reflect a growing concern for educating the student at risk of dropping out of school. With the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 200I, it was expected that all ·public schools be held accountable in addressing remedies and preventative measures for dropouts. Since, 2001, backed by policy in thirty-three states, local education agencies have turned to alternative educational programs to decrease dropout and increase graduation rates (Jobs for the Future (JFF), 2009). While state policy, in general, gives districts latitude to develop these programs, it is often left to alternative school educators to provide meaningful learning experiences to at-risk students (Ruiz de Velasco et al., 2008). On one hand, NCLB's challenge for educators to "develop and execute plans of action they believe will effectively address achievement gaps,t (Evans, 2009; pg. 64), resonates with the flexibility and concentrated best practices found in alternative education. However, questions arise when alternative school teachers and principals are expected to follow increasingly stringent accountability policies.



Tell us how this article helped you.


To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.