A Descriptive Study of California Continuation High Schools WESTED April 2008

 Our schools are largely “invisible”  Our schools provide an alternative route to diploma for vulnerable youth  Continuation schools are the cornerstone of the state’s drop-out prevention strategy  Our schools are not getting the academic and support services needed  Our schools remain the least studied sub-sector of secondary education 2

 More likely to be racially/ethnically concentrated  English-learners are over-represented  Higher incidence of students in foster care or not living with parent  Higher mobility  Higher rates of drug and alcohol use  Greater involvement in physical fights and more likely to be victimized  Academic efforts must address the high level of nonacademic learning barriers our students experience 3

 State data systems do not allow comparable comparisons  Our students score substantially lower on all measures of academic performance  At local level records make it impossible to assess school success  Comparison of scores over time shows less loss for our students  Our students modestly out-performed comprehensive cohorts  On CAHSEE 11tyh and 12 th grade passing rates are very close to traditional schools 4

 Students perceptions about school, safety, caring relationships, high expectations and opportunities for meaningful participation  Close connection of academic and non- academic factors in our schools 5

 State student performance and curriculum standards pose new challenges  There is scant recognition in state finance policy of the special challenges to effective programming in our schools  State intends to hold all students to the same academic standards  Both the CAHSEE and NCLB have provided increased focus on teacher preparation and more teachers are fully credentialed 6

 State assumes all students can meet state-mandated benchmarks in the same amount of time  Materials, curricula and supports necessary for academic success are the same for the traditional students as the continuation students  Alternative schools are held to a set of standards different than traditional schools  Ambivalence exists between ASAM academic “engagement” benchmarks and AYP requirements  Growing preference fro WASC goals for student achievement  Lack of consensus about how to measure effectiveness of school serve student with special needs  Lack of guidance regarding legitimate expectations of teachers and principals 7

 Our schools are asked to do more in less time and fewer resources  Our schools increasingly have no additional resources for class size  Class sizes are only marginally better and often worse that other schools in district  There is a general lack of counselors, librarians, nurses, attendance officers and development instruction  Students in our schools present great academic and behavioral challenges  Our students are more likely to be pregnant, parenting or working part time 8

 There is no single point of authority for articulating state policy on youth education and development  At local level youth-serving institutions operate in isolation or at cross purposes  This condition is an “institutional train wreck” 9

 Policies that allow our schools to place parameters on referral and placement  Assistance in effective collaboration with other agencies and schools for post-secondary opportunities  Scant recognition is given to need to educators for special staff-training or skills in dealing with our students  Quality of school facilities and location either support or hinder performance  Lack of a “continuum of care” policy often inhibit our potential 10

 Principal clear about standards and student outcomes empower teachers  External partnerships that provide post-secondary pathways needed especially those with community colleges and local businesses  Positive beliefs about students  Control of placement and intake process to provide a stable environment supports good teaching  Communicate a clear vision of what success looks like a classrooms  Reliance on “best practices” research on instruction used as evidence of student outcomes 11

 Prior capacity in the form of experience and strong leadership from both teachers and principals is needed  Quality of instruction depend on the beliefs, effort and motivation of individual teachers and administrators 12