http://dps.sagepub.

com/
Journal of Disability Policy Studies
http://dps.sagepub.com/content/24/4/218
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1044207312461672
2014 24: 218 originally published online 7 November 2012 Journal of Disability Policy Studies
Matthew R. Hoge, Carl J. Liaupsin, John Umbreit and Jolenea B. Ferro
Schools
Examining Placement Considerations for Students With Emotional Disturbance Across Three Alternative

Published by:

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal of Disability Policy Studies Additional services and information for

http://dps.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://dps.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

What is This?

- Nov 7, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 10, 2014 Version of Record >>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Journal of Disability Policy Studies
2014, Vol. 24(4) 218 226
Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1044207312461672
jdps.sagepub.com
The placement of a student into the appropriate educational
environment is one of the most complicated and conten-
tious issues in special education (Crockett, 1999; Simpson,
2004). Following the passage of the Education of All Hand-
icapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, later reauthorized
as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
in 1990, guidelines were established to direct how to deter-
mine the most appropriate, least restrictive educational
environment for a student (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). Stu-
dent placement is a component of the Individualized Educa-
tion Program (IEP) and is to be determined annually. The
decision should be based on consideration of the students
educational needs as well as the impact of his or her behav-
ior on the learning environment of peers (Yell, 1995).
School districts rely on an array of settings to provide
instruction and services to address the various challenges
associated with educating students with emotional distur-
bance (ED). As noted by Gliona, Gonzales, and Jacobson
(2005), schools depend on a continuum of placements
inside and outside of the general education classroom.
This continuum may include special education consulta-
tion within regular education classrooms, a mix of
resource and regular education classrooms, resource
classes, special classes within a school, special day
schools, home-based schooling, residential schools, or
hospital schooling.
When students with ED exhibit chronic behaviors that
prevent learning for themselves or others, or are so dan-
gerous that they pose a threat to self, peers, or staff,
schools often choose to place these students in alternative
educational settings to address their specific educational
needs (Atkins & Bartuska, 2010; Kleiner, Porch, & Farris,
2002). Students with ED, when compared with all other
disability categories combined, are more likely to be edu-
cated in a setting that does not include nondisabled peers
(Coutinho & Oswald, 1996).
Nationally, districts increasingly rely on alternative set-
tings as a means to meet the challenge of educating stu-
dents at risk of school failure. From 1997 to 2002, the
number of public alternative schools in the United States
more than tripled to nearly 11,000 (NCES, 2002). Students
with ED are one of the populations most affected by this
461672DPS24410.1177/1044207312461672Jo
urnal of Disability Policy StudiesHoge et al.
Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2011
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1
University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
Corresponding Author:
Matthew R. Hoge, MA, University of Arizona, College of Education, 1430
E. Second Street, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Email: mhoge@mac.com
Examining Placement Considerations for
Students With Emotional Disturbance
Across Three Alternative Schools
Matthew R. Hoge, MA
1
, Carl J. Liaupsin, EdD
1
,
John Umbreit, PhD
1
, and Jolenea B. Ferro, PhD
1

Abstract
The continuum of educational environments exists to ensure the most appropriate and least restrictive educational setting
for students with disabilities. One setting schools use to provide services to students with an emotional disturbance
(ED) is an alternative school. How schools make decisions regarding student placement into and out of this setting lacks
examination. This study identifies factors considered when making placements into and out of three alternative schools for
students with ED. A mixed-methods approach was used to collect data from key stakeholders from each school involved
with decision-making authority regarding student placement. Findings include (a) limited transitioning of students back to
less restrictive settings, (b) greater number of factors considered during exit decisions from alternative schools than entry,
and (c) students return to a less restrictive setting not contingent on those factors considered when placing the student
into the school.
Keywords
emotional disturbance, placement, alternative school, least restrictive environment, transition
Article
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Hoge et al. 219
shift. According to the U.S. Department of Education,
nearly 13% of students classified as ED were served in
public or private separate facilities (Data Accountability
Center, 2005). The percentage of students with ED in non-
traditional school settings increases when one includes
those placed in residential facilities, juvenile correctional
programs, or hospital-based schools. Finally, though stu-
dents with ED comprised only 8% of the total special edu-
cation population, they constituted 44% of all students
with disabilities placed in private settings (Greene &
Winters, 2007).
Although a common definition for alternative schools
does not exist, generally they involve the provision of spe-
cialized educational services for an at-risk population
(Atkins & Bartuska, 2010). As school districts continue to
rely on alternative schools to educate students with ED, it is
critical that researchers explore all aspects of these pro-
grams, as is being done regarding other nontraditional edu-
cational settings. For example, researchers examining
education in residential placements and juvenile correc-
tional facilities have reported on students academic charac-
teristics (Foley, 2001; Krezmien, Mulcahy, & Leone, 2008),
placement factors (Baker, Archer, & Curtis, 2007; Cook &
Hill, 1990), outcomes (Hornby & Witte, 2008; Risler &
ORourke, 2009), program practices and services (Gagnon
& Barber, 2010; Miller, Hunt, & Georges, 2006), partici-
pant attitudes (Harriss, Barlow, & Moli, 2008; Houchins,
Shippen, & Jolivette, 2006), and transition from setting
(Clark & Unruh, 2010; Trout et al., 2010).
Examinations of alternative schools specifically for stu-
dents with ED, although recently receiving more attention
from the research community, have been less comprehen-
sive. To date, researchers have primarily investigated differ-
ences in students placed in self-contained schools versus
self-contained classrooms (Lane, Wehby, Little, & Cooley,
2005a, 2005b; Mattison, 2011), but have also evaluated pro-
gram effectiveness (Mattison & Schneider, 2009), and the
use of targeted behavioral (Turton, Umbreit, & Mathur,
2011) and academic interventions (Bowman-Perrott,
Greenwood, & Tapia, 2007).
Despite the use of alternative schools to educate students
with ED, there is little research examining how students enter
and exit these programs (Atkins & Bartuska, 2010; Frey,
2002). Although alternative schools typically serve students
whose needs are not being met in the general educational
environment, they suffer from a lack of institutional legiti-
macy (Raywid, 1994), often operating in isolation and inde-
pendence (Atkins & Bartuska, 2010). As school districts
continue to rely on these placements, there is a need for more
targeted investigations into the variables considered when
determining educational setting. The goal of this study was to
examine decision making at the points of entry and exit by
identifying factors considered by staff in three alternative
schools when determining placement of students with ED.
Method
Research Design
The present pilot study used a sequential exploratory
mixed-methods approach (Creswell, 2003). The quantita-
tive method was guided by the results of the qualitative
stage. In turn, the quantitative results were used to extend
the qualitative findings (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). A five-
stage process, modified from the paradigm for an integra-
tive mixed-methods research approach (Castro, Kellison,
Boyd, & Kopak, 2010), was used to collect and interpret
findings. The stages (see Figure 1) consisted of (a) participant
selection, (b) qualitative data collection, (c) interpretation
of findings, (d) quantitative data collection, and (e) data
analysis. Using this process, the lead researcher (first
author) conducted interviews with staff at three alternative
schools exclusively serving students with ED to identify
factors used in determining student placement into and out
of the programs. This mixed-methods approach allowed the
researcher to collect qualitative and quantitative data in
unique yet similar settings to examine the programs, their
differing abilities to return students to less restrictive set-
tings, and the features that contributed to differences.
Participant Selection
School characteristics. Three school sites located in the
Southwestern United States were selected to participate in
the study. The state licensing the three alternative schools
provides a broad definition of the components required to
operate a school for students with ED. To qualify for the
study, a site had to (a) be approved by the state as an alterna-
tive school for students in the special education category of
ED, (b) be included in the continuum of service delivery
options within the local educational agency (LEA), (c) be
housed in a classroom or building on a general education
campus or a separate site within the LEA, (d) provide a cur-
riculum aligned with state standards, (e) be populated by no
more than 12 students per classroom, (f) be staffed by at
least one teacher and one full-time paraprofessional, (g) be
able to regularly provide a mental health component, and
(h) be able to provide local case management for students.
Each school is described below. Table 1 provides a sum-
mary of school information.
The first participating school, located on the campus of a
public middle school, operated as a separate, alternative
educational school for students with ED. It consisted of a
single classroom populated by seven middle school and one
fifth-grade student with ED. The students were referred
from a single school district of nearly 20,000 students, pri-
marily Caucasian (70%) and Hispanic (25%). The eight stu-
dents in the class were primarily male (n = 6, 75%) and
Hispanic (n = 3, 38%); 38% (n = 3) had been in the program
for at least 1 year. Although students spent the majority of
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from
220 Journal of Disability Policy Studies 24(4)
their academic day in the classroom, they were provided the
opportunity to interact with peers from general education in
shared settings like hallways and cafeteria. One lead teacher
and two paraprofessionals worked in the classroom.
Transition was based on the individual need and objec-
tives for each student. School 1 met twice monthly to evalu-
ate the progress of all students in the school. Student review
teams at School 1 consisted of program personnel, a repre-
sentative of the possible receiving school, and a district
representative.
The second participating school, housed on a separate
campus, consisted of six classrooms. The school received
students from a single district of nearly 130,000 students,
with a population largely Caucasian (48%) and Hispanic
(46%). The 29 students included in the study were primarily
male (n = 27, 93%), Caucasian (n = 13, 45%), and in Grades
6 to 8 (n = 17, 59%); 66% (n = 19) had attended the school
for at least 1 year. Each classroom was assigned one lead
teacher and at least one paraprofessional to provide support.
Students spent their entire academic day on campus and did
not have access to nondisabled peers during their school day.
The third participating school, with four classrooms, was
a private self-contained school for students with ED that
contracted with multiple school districts. No data were pro-
vided as to the population size or demographics of the refer-
ring school districts. The student population included in this
study, 13 in total, was primarily male (n = 12, 92%),
Caucasian (n = 7, 54%), and in Grades K-5 (n = 8, 62%);
69% (n = 9) had been in the program for at least 1 year.
Each classroom had one lead teacher and at least one para-
professional. Students school day included social skills,
technology, and vocational education. Students did not have
opportunities to interact with nondisabled peers during the
course of their school day.
To determine student advancement toward transition,
Schools 2 and 3 used a level system based on daily point
sheets and common schoolwide goals. Occasionally, an indi-
vidualized goal was provided in addition to set schoolwide
goals. Student progress reviews were conducted on a quar-
terly basis, with transition being considered for students who
had met level system criteria for schoolwide behavior goals.
Criteria consisted of obtaining 90% on four-to-five behavior
goals for 9 consecutive weeks. Consideration for transition
began only after criteria were met. Review teams for Schools
2 and 3 consisted of program-based personnel. When a stu-
dent was determined to be ready for transition, a separate
meeting was scheduled with a representative from the
receiving school.
Student populations. Students were not direct participants
in this study. However, the focus of interviews with staff
participants centered on factors leading to transition of ele-
mentary and middle schoolaged students enrolled in their
alternative schools. The study was conducted at the begin-
ning of the school year. Statistics for student populations
came from the previous school year. The lead researcher
limited the discussions to elementary and middle school
students to exclude additional considerations related to
transition at the secondary level, such as a student dropping
out of school or choosing an alternative diploma option.
Staff participants reported demographic data for elemen-
tary and middle school-age student populations served at
their individual site (see Table 2). The following data reflect
the collective totals for all three self-contained schools (N =
50). The majority of students were male (n = 46, 92%) with
a larger proportion (n = 29, 58%) in middle school than in
Grades K-5 (n = 21, 42%). Student populations represented
a variety of ethnicities with Caucasian being the most com-
monly enrolled (n = 22, 44%), followed by Hispanic (n =
13, 26%), African American (n = 8, 16%), Native American
(n = 3, 6%), Asian (n = 2, 4%), and unspecified (n = 2, 4%).
Overall, 62% (n = 31) had maintained their current place-
ment in the self-contained school for at least 1 year.
Staff participants. Staff participants were selected from
among the program staff working in the three alternative
Figure 1. Research process.
Table 1. School Descriptions.
School 1 School 2 School 3
Student
population
M E, M, H E, M, H
Number of
classrooms
1 4 4
Received from One district One district Multiple districts
Locations Public school
campus
Separate school
site
Separate school
site
Student goals Individualized Schoolwide
system
Schoolwide
system
Student reviews Biweekly Quarterly Quarterly
Review team Local and district Local Local
Transition
decision basis
Target behavior
from referral
Set of behaviors:
Level system
Set of behaviors:
Level system
Note. M = middle school; E = elementary; H = high school.
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Hoge et al. 221
schools for students with ED. The criteria for participation
were designed to recruit individuals with experience and
specific program knowledge. Participants were required to
have (a) worked at the specific site during the 2009-2010
school year and (b) participated in the decision-making pro-
cess for all students from their program who were included
in the study. Participants from the three schools included
the lead classroom teacher (School 1), the school psycholo-
gist and principal (School 2), and the school principal
(School 3).
Qualitative Data Collection
The lead researcher conducted interviews using the narra-
tive inquiry process (Marshall & Rossman, 2010). In narra-
tive inquiry, the participant retells a personal experience. In
this case, the participant shared why each individual stu-
dent was placed into the program (entry) and how the staff
member or transition team came to determine whether the
student was prepared to transition to a less restrictive edu-
cational environment (exit). Although the participants were
encouraged to use notes and school records when needed,
they often recounted factors from memory, relying on past
and current assumptions about the student. The researcher
implemented this method to produce responses of a more
reflective and personal nature.
Following agreement to participate in the study, the
researcher conducted a 1- to 2-hr interview with the partici-
pants at each individual school site. Interviews were con-
ducted in a setting of the participants choice. Prior to the
interview, a document with the questions to be asked was
provided to allow participants the opportunity to address any
concerns preceding the session, as well as to allow prepara-
tion of necessary reference materials. All interviews were
recorded, transcribed, and interpreted by the lead researcher.
Participants answered questions related to their alternative
school and specific to each individual student attending from
the previous school year. The researcher asked closed-ended
and open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions, used to
collect specific responses, produced data pertaining to demo-
graphics and educational experiences for each individual stu-
dent. The responses included (a) each students age, grade
level, ethnicity, and gender; (b) the number of months edu-
cated in the current self-contained placement; (c) whether
the student was ever considered for transition during the
school year; and (d) whether the student transitioned to a less
restrictive setting. The final question produced three possible
responses with respect to student transition. Generally, stu-
dents were or were not transitioned to a less restrictive set-
ting. However, one school offered the option of partial
transition, defined as a student attending at least one class
with nondisabled peers while still being enrolled in the alter-
native school. An example would be a student participating in
a general education gym or science class for one period of the
academic day, while receiving the remainder of their educa-
tional services in the alternative school.
Open-ended questions asked the participants to state
(a) their schools mission and approach to working with
students with ED, (b) the rationale(s) for each students
referral to the program, (c) the specific exit criteria related
to that individual student, and (d) if the student did not exit
the program, why that decision was made. In many cases,
the respondents provided brief answers, often citing a stu-
dents failure to meet a schoolwide benchmark criterion. In
these situations, participants were encouraged to elaborate
and identify specific factors that contributed to the teams
decision to maintain the students placement in the alterna-
tive school.
Interpretation of Findings
The researcher transcribed the interviews and a member-
check was conducted with participants reviewing the initial
transcripts for accuracy. One participant made revisions to
the transcript to modify responses. All participants approved
final transcripts prior to coding.
Following participant approval of the transcribed materi-
als, the researcher reviewed and coded the interviews for fac-
tors associated with a students entrance to, maintained
placement, and/or exit from the self-contained ED program.
Among the three participating schools, five factors were iden-
tified as reasons students were placed in the self-contained
schools. These included (a) aggression, (b) defiance, (c) running
(either from class or school grounds), (d) concerns about the
students mental health, and (e) student performance of behav-
iors resulting in harm to self.
Twelve factors were identified as reasons students
were not ready to be transitioned to a less restrictive edu-
cational environment. Those factors, in no specific order,
were (a) failure to meet program goals as determined by a
schoolwide level system, (b) parent resistance to transition,
Table 2. Student Demographics.
School 1 School 2 School 3 Composite
Male/female 6/2 27/2 12/1 46/4
Elementary/
middle
1/7 12/17 8/5 21/29
Caucasian 25% 45% 54% 44%
Hispanic 38% 28% 15% 26%
African
American
0% 17% 23% 16%
Native American 13% 7% 0% 6%
Asian 13% 3% 0% 4%
Unspecified 13% 8% 4%
In program > 1
year
38% 66% 69% 62%
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from
222 Journal of Disability Policy Studies 24(4)
(c) behavior regression, (d) aggression, (e) more evaluation
time needed, (f) program determined to be the least restric-
tive environment (LRE), (g) student resistance to transi-
tion, (h) concerns as to the mental health of the student,
(i) instability in students living situation, (j) no available
placement options for transition, (k) defiance, and (l) run-
ning from class or school grounds.
Quantitative Data Collection
Following coding, the researcher created a single-question
checklist consisting of the 12 items participants identified
as factors resulting in decisions to maintain student place-
ments in the alternative schools. The purpose was to allow
participants to add, substitute, or subtract factors previously
identified as the rationale for maintaining a students place-
ment in the self-contained school.
A second interview, lasting 30 to 45 min, was conducted
with the participants from each self-contained school within
a 4-week period of the initial interview. Participants used
the factor list to review their reporting on students who did
not transition. Participants were asked to reanswer the ques-
tion, Why did the student not transition during the previ-
ous school year? for each individual student. Using the
factor list, participants identified all factors used in the
rationale for maintaining the students placement.
Data Analysis
The data from the closed-ended questions (first interview)
and the responses generated by participants using the factor
list (second interview) were analyzed and communicated
using descriptive statistics. The categories reported include
(a) student demographics, (b) degree of placement change,
and (c) factors considered in a students change of place-
ment. Data are reported as a percentage in relation to the
total student population.
Results
Entry Into Alternative School
Participants were asked questions to identify factors lead-
ing to the placement of students into their alternative
school. Findings reflect a composite of all three programs
(N = 50). Individual program results are provided in Table 3.
Six unique factors for entry were identified. In many cases,
schools identified multiple factors for each student, thus the
identified factors add up to more than the total number of
participants. Aggression was the primary reason identi-
fied by participants (n = 43, 86%) for placement of students
in the alternative school setting. Defiance was the second
most commonly identified factor (n = 12, 24%), followed
by running from classroom or school grounds (n = 10,
20%), performing behaviors resulting in danger to self
(n = 7, 14%), placement by transfer from residential treat-
ment program or changing of school district (n = 7, 14%),
and mental health concerns (n = 6, 12%).
Exit From Alternative School
Participants reported whether a change in placement was
considered for each individual student (N = 50). To be con-
sidered, a meeting needed to be held specifically to discuss
a change of placement for the student. Individual program
results are found in Table 4. Across all three programs, 34%
of students (n = 17) were considered at some point during
the school year for transition to a less restrictive setting.
Based on all students in the study, 22% (n = 11) attempted
transition at some point during the school year. An attempt
at transition was defined as the student participating in at
least one class with nondisabled peers. Some students (n =
4, 8%) were provided the option of a partial transition.
Among all students, 14% (n = 7) fully transitioned by the
end of the school year.
Continuation in Alternative School
Participants were asked to identify factors resulting in a
decision to maintain the students placement in the alterna-
tive school. Twelve factors were identified. Findings reflect
the percentage of occurrence across all students determined
not ready to transition (N = 43). Individual school results
are found in Table 3. Across all schools, the primary factor
contributing to maintaining placement in the alternative
program was the students failure to meet programwide
goals based on a level system (n = 33, 77%). Other factors
cited were aggression (n = 18, 42%), defiance (n = 18,
42%), home instability associated with frequent changes
in living placement (n = 8, 19%), parent concern with
placement change (n = 8, 19%), alternative placement
determined as LRE for student (n = 7, 16%), more time
needed to evaluate student progress (n = 6, 14%), behav-
ior regression (n = 5, 12%), student resistance to transi-
tion (n = 5, 12%), mental health concerns (n = 4, 9%),
running from class or school grounds (n = 3, 7%), and
no openings in less restrictive settings (n = 1, 2%).
Full Transition From Alternative School
Across all settings, seven students were fully transitioned to
a less restrictive setting. The primary reason identified as the
deciding rationale for transitioning a student was he or she
having met a programwide standard in accordance with the
schools level system (n = 5, 71%). The other two cases
represented unique approaches. One school was able to
integrate a student back into mainstream classes following a
progressive partial transition approach that ultimately
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Hoge et al. 223
resulted in full transition. In another case, a student was
transitioned to a less restrictive setting after the alternative
school reviewed factors contributing to the disability and
determined the more restrictive, alternative placement was
not appropriate.
In the schools studied here, transition decisions were
influenced by program- and non-program-related features.
Among program-related features, transition was more likely
to be considered or attempted if the school (a) implemented
partial transition, (b) was located with or near the returning
school, and (c) frequently involved personnel at the receiv-
ing school both prior to and during the transition process.
Discussion
This study examined program decision making at the points
of entry and exit by identifying factors staff considered
when determining placement of students with ED into or
out of three alternative schools. Findings generally showed
similar patterns across the three schools. First, limited tran-
sitioning occurred for students from alternative schools
back to less restrictive settings. Only seven students (14%)
transitioned. Second, although six specific factors led stu-
dents to be placed into the alternative schools, a broader list
of 12 factors was considered when deciding to maintain or
change student placement. Third, a students return to a less
restrictive setting was not necessarily contingent upon
those factors considered when placing the student into the
program and often included factors unrelated to student
academic or behavioral performance.
IDEA mandates the provision of a free and appropriate
public education in a students LRE. For students with ED,
the phrases appropriate and least restrictive can leave
room for varied interpretations about learning environ-
ments, especially when those terms are applied to nontra-
ditional educational settings. Alternative schools may
provide an important resource by offering unique educa-
tional services specifically tailored for students with ED
during those times when these students cannot be educated
with nondisabled peers. However, the need for intensely
restrictive settings as part of a continuum of placements
also warrants scrutiny through investigations of program
practices.
Aggression was the most frequently cited reason stu-
dents were referred for placement into the alternative
Table 3. Transition Factors.
Factor for entry Factor for exit

School 1
(n = 8)
School 2
(n = 29)
School 3
(n = 13)
Composite
(N = 50)
School 1
(n = 7)
School 2
(n = 24)
School 3
(n = 12)
Composite
(N = 43)
Aggression 75% 83% 100% 86% 29% 50% 33% 42%
Defiance 0% 34% 15% 24% 14% 58% 25% 42%
Running from classroom/
school
13% 17% 31% 20% 0% 0% 25% 7%
Mental health concerns 25% 7% 8% 10% 14% 8% 8% 9%
Danger to self 37% 10% 8% 14%
Transfer from other setting 0% 24% 0% 14%
Failure to meet
programwide goals
0% 100% 75% 77%
Parent concern 43% 8% 25% 19%
Behavior regression 14% 17% 0% 12%
Student resistance to
transition
43% 0% 17% 12%
More evaluation needed 29% 8% 17% 14%
Current placement is LRE 14% 13% 25% 16%
Home instability 14% 25% 8% 19%
No placement openings 0% 4% 0% 2%
Note. LRE = least restrictive environment.
Table 4. Transition Outcomes.
School 1
(n = 8)
School 2
(n = 29)
School 3
(n = 13)
Composite
(N = 50)
Considered 75% 31% 15% 34%
Attempted 63% 17% 8% 22%
Partial 50% 0% 0% 8%
Full 13% 17% 8% 14%
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from
224 Journal of Disability Policy Studies 24(4)
schools (86% across all programs). However, it was not
identified as the most common reason for maintaining a stu-
dent in the alternative placement. In fact, aggression was
named a factor for only 42% of students when transition
was determined not to be appropriate. The primary purpose
of alternative schools for students with ED is to address the
problem behaviors leading to the placement so that students
can return to a less restrictive setting. Therefore, a need
exists for more information about why factors unrelated to
the initial placement seem to prevent students from transi-
tioning back to less restrictive environments.
Failure to meet the requirements of a schoolwide level
system was the most common reason students were denied
transition (77% across all programs). In Schools 2 and 3,
the level system required students to qualify out of the
more restrictive placement by performing program-specific
behaviors at a prearranged level (often 90% of the time) for
a set period (up to 9 weeks). If a student was unable to meet
the goals of the level system, he or she was deemed to be in
the LRE. Teachers working with students with ED rely
heavily on level systems (Bauer, 1986). Unfortunately, most
of these systems are developed through staff collaboration
or teacher creativity rather than research, fail due to lack of
implementer knowledge, and may not even include neces-
sary components that would enable successful transition
back to less restrictive settings (Cancio & Johnson, 2007;
Farrell, Smith, & Brownell, 1998). The use of a level sys-
tem as the primary method to determine student educational
placement is of some concern.
Perhaps the most significant concern with the use of level
systems is their legality. Scheuermann (1994) identified two
ways level systems may restrict student access to main-
streaming and impact placement decisions. First, restricting
transition to only students who have achieved the highest
tier of a level system frames placement as an earned privi-
lege, a violation of a students rights under IDEA. Placement
decisions are to be based on the students educational needs,
not student status. Second, level systems may violate a stu-
dents IEP if they use a universal entry point, starting all stu-
dents at Level 1, and fail to provide individualized conditions
for movement through the system. Programs that construct
level systems not based on goals identified in a students IEP
risk violating special education law.
In the schools studied here, factors unrelated to the pro-
gram, students behavior, or academic deficits influenced
transition decisions. These included the receiving schools
perception of safety, student or parent preferences, and
home environment. These factors not identified during the
original placement into the alternative school frequently
inhibited the students return to a less restrictive setting.
Students with ED are often placed in restrictive settings
because they present a danger to self or others. Once
removed, school districts may be resistant to reintegrate stu-
dents because of parents concerns, insufficient staffing to
serve students with ED, or lack of a less restrictive option in
the school system. As a result of growing concern over
school safety, the burden of proof often lies on the displaced
student to demonstrate he or she will not present the same
problem behaviors that led to placement in the alternative
setting.
Participants reported that some parents and students pre-
ferred the alternative school setting due to the services it pro-
vided, the staffs willingness to work with more challenging
behaviors, and the decreased frequency with which the parent
had to be called in. Even though the school felt some students
were prepared to transition out of the program, they adhered to
the requests of the child or parent. Participants also described
several instances of maneuvering by either student or parent to
ensure a change of placement did not occur.
Although an exact percentage was not collected for this
study, many students were part of the states foster care
system. Participants considered stability in home life to be
a desirable asset to successful reintegration. Frequent
changes in home placement, termed instability, were a fac-
tor in deciding against transition for 19% of students. In
these cases, the schools decision to provide stability by
maintaining the current educational placement took prece-
dence over predetermined conditions for transition to a less
restrictive setting.
Two particular limitations should be noted. First, we rec-
ognize that districts may benefit financially from placing stu-
dents into alternative settings. This topic has received
previous attention in regard to placement of students into spe-
cial education with researchers finding financial incentives
boost special education enrollment and may lead to manipu-
lation of student disability classification (Greene & Forster,
2002; Wishart & Jahnukainen, 2010). As part of a states spe-
cial education funding formula, school districts often receive
dramatic increases in their funding when serving students
in alternative schools versus self-contained classrooms.
Coutinho and Oswald (1996) found higher per pupil reve-
nues related to placement in more restrictive settings. We are
not suggesting self-serving behavior by school districts but
acknowledge that factors outside the scope of this investiga-
tion may also contribute to a school districts decision to
return students to less restrictive settings. Although this study
focused solely on the perspective of the alternative school
attempting to exit a student, future research focusing on the
receiving school might shed light on this issue.
Second, as with most studies examining students with
ED, the size of the population included is relatively small
(schools N = 3; students N = 50). Findings add to the litera-
ture regarding students with ED but should not be used to
make generalizations. One challenge in generalizing
research on alternative schools serving students with ED is
that the characteristics and requirements in programming
have great variability. Although the schools included here
shared a common definition for alternative schools
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Hoge et al. 225
for students with ED outlined by the state in which they
operated, programs in other states may differ based on the
populations they serve, the staffing they provide, and the
format by which they deliver services.
Recommendations
Determining where students fit best along the continuum of
placements presents considerable challenges to special edu-
cators. Although it accounts for the variety of environments
needed to educate students with ED, no clear rationale
exists as to how these students should move from setting to
setting. The findings here show this to be especially true for
students placed into alternative schools. Placement deci-
sions were influenced by a multitude of factors, only some
of which related to student academic and behavioral perfor-
mance. As the operation of these programs undoubtedly
will continue, sustained research into their practices, com-
positions, and policies is needed to ensure appropriate and
effective educational services for students with ED.
Policies at the state and local levels should be revised to
better address placement issues. Effective policies might
focus on district accountability and require increased docu-
mentation of their efforts to educate students with ED in the
LRE. Determining why students are not transitioning from
restrictive settings and how districts will address these fac-
tors must be a priority. In doing so, the onus of moving a
student to less restrictive placements falls on the school, not
the student with a disability.
Finally, the use of level systems must be under increased
scrutiny. As noted, questions exist as to the legality of this
practice for determining student educational setting. In
addition, programs are not held to a standard of reliability
and validity for the practice. It should be expected that mea-
surement tools will be based on evidence, used frequently,
and implemented by practitioners who have received train-
ing and demonstrated mastery in their use.
These policy recommendations address the gray area of
determining educational placement for students with ED.
By providing more oversight and accountability to those
working with our most challenging students, we hope the
quality of intervention delivered in restrictive settings
results in improved outcomes for students with ED.
Authors Note
The manuscript has been reviewed and edited to ensure no
acknowledgments, financial disclosure information, author notes,
and/or other text could identify the authors to reviewers.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Atkins, T., & Bartuska, J. (2010). Considerations for the place-
ment of youth with EBD in alternative education programs.
Beyond Behavior, 19(2), 1420.
Baker, A., Archer, M., & Curtis, P. (2007). Youth characteristics
associated with behavioral and mental health problems dur-
ing the transition to residential treatment centers: The Odyssey
project population. Child Welfare, 86(6), 529.
Bauer, A. (1986). Level systems: A framework for the individual-
ization of behavior management. Behavioral Disorders, 12(1),
2835.
Bowman-Perrott, L. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Tapia, Y. (2007).
The efficacy of CWPT used in secondary alternative school
classrooms with small teacher/pupil ratios and students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Education & Treatment of
Children, 30(3), 6578.
Cancio, E., & Johnson, J. (2007). Level systems revisited: An
important tool for educating students with emotional and
behavioral disorders. International Journal of Behavioral
Consultation and Therapy, 3, 512527.
Castro, F., Kellison, J., Boyd, S., & Kopak, A. (2010). A meth-
odology for conducting integrative mixed methods research
and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4,
342360.
Clark, H. G., & Unruh, D. (2010). Transition practices for adju-
dicated youth with E/BDs and related disabilities. Behavioral
Disorders, 36, 4351.
Cook, M. J., & Hill, P. G. (1990). Preplacement characteristics
and educational status of handicapped and non-handicapped
youthful offenders. Journal of Correctional Education, 41(4),
194198.
Coutinho, M., & Oswald, D. (1996). Identification and place-
ment of students with serious emotional disturbance. Part II:
National and state trends in the implementation of LRE. Jour-
nal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 4052.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crockett, J. B. (1999). The least restrictive environment and the
1997 IDEA amendments and federal regulations. Journal of
Law & Education, 28, 543564.
Data Accountability Center: Individuals with Disabilities Edu-
cation Act Data. (2005). Table 2-2: Students ages 6 through
21 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment
and state: Fall 2005 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www
.ideadata.org/arc_toc7.asp#partcPS
Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C.
1400 et seq.
Farrell, D. T., Smith, S. W., & Brownell, M. T. (1998). Teacher
perceptions of level system effectiveness on the behavior of
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from
226 Journal of Disability Policy Studies 24(4)
students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of
Special Education, 32, 8998.
Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth
and correctional educational programs: A literature review.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 248259.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evalu-
ate research in education (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.
Frey, A. (2002). Predictors of placement recommendations for
children with behavioral or emotional disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 27, 126136.
Gagnon, J. C., & Barber, B. (2010). Characteristics of and services
provided to youth in secure care facilities. Behavioral Disor-
ders, 36, 719.
Gliona, M. F., Gonzales, A. K., & Jacobson, E. S. (2005). Dedicated,
not segregated: Suggested changes in thinking about instruc-
tional environments and in the language of special education. In
J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full
inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special educa-
tion bandwagon (pp. 135145). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Greene, J. P., & Forster, G. (2002). Effects of funding incentives
on special education enrollment (Civic Report 32). New York,
NY: Manhattan Institute.
Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2007). Debunking a special edu-
cation myth: Dont blame private options for rising costs. Edu-
cation Next, 7(2), 6771.
Harriss, L., Barlow, J., & Moli, P. (2008). Specialist residential
education for children with severe emotional and behavioural
difficulties: Pupil, parent, and staff perspectives. Emotional &
Behavioural Difficulties, 13, 3147.
Hornby, G., & Witte, C. (2008). Follow-up study of ex-students
of a residential school for children with emotional and behav-
ioural difficulties in New Zealand. Emotional & Behavioural
Disorders, 13, 7993.
Houchins, D. E., Shippen, M. E., & Jolivette, K. (2006). Sys-
tem reform and job satisfaction of juvenile justice teachers.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 127136.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1990,
20 U.S.C. 14011485.
Kleiner, B., Porch, R., & Farris, E. (2002). Public alternative schools
and programs for students at risk of education failure: 2000-01.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Krezmien, M. P., Mulcahy, C. A., & Leone, P. E. (2008). Detained
and committed youth: Examining differences in achievement,
mental health needs, and special education status. Education
& Treatment of Children, 31, 445464.
Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., Little, M. A., & Cooley, C. (2005a).
Academic, social, and behavioral profiles of students with
emotional and behavioral disorders educated in self-contained
classrooms and self-contained schools: Part IAre they more
alike than different? Behavioral Disorders, 30, 349361.
Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., Little, M. A., & Cooley, C. (2005b).
Students educated in self-contained classes and self-contained
schools: Part IIHow do they progress over time? Behavioral
Disorders, 30, 363374.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative
research (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Mattison, R. E. (2011). Comparison of students classified ED in
self-contained classrooms and a self-contained school. Educa-
tion & Treatment of Children, 34, 1533.
Mattison, R. E., & Schneider, J. (2009). First-year effectiveness
on school functioning of a self-contained ED middle school.
Behavioral Disorders, 34, 6071.
Miller, J. A., Hunt, D. P., & Georges, M. A. (2006). Reduction of
physical restraints in residential treatment facilities. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 16, 202208.
Raywid, M. A. (1994). Alternative schools: The state of the art.
Educational Leadership, 52(1), 2631.
Risler, E., & ORourke, T. (2009). Thinking exit at entry:
Exploring outcomes of Georgias juvenile justice educa-
tional programs. Journal of Correctional Education, 60,
225239.
Scheuermann, B. (1994). Level systems and the law: Are they
compatible? Behavioral Disorders, 19, 205221.
Simpson, R. L. (2004). Inclusion of students with behavioral dis-
orders in general education settings: Research and measure-
ment issues. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 1931.
Trout, A. L., Chmelka, M. B., Thompson, R. W., Epstein, M. H.,
Tyler, P., & Pick, R. (2010). The departure status of youth from
residential group care: Implications for aftercare. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 19, 6778.
Turton, A. M., Umbreit, J., & Mathur, S. R. (2011). Systematic
function-based intervention for adolescents with emotional
and behavioral disorders in an alternative setting: Broadening
the context. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 117128.
Wishart, D., & Jahnukainen, M. (2010). Difficulties associated
with the coding and categorization of students with emotional
and behavioural disabilities in Alberta. Emotional & Behav-
ioural Difficulties, 15, 181187.
Yell, M. L. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion, and
students with disabilities: A legal analysis. Journal of Special
Education, 28, 389404.
Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2004). Placing students with dis-
abilities in inclusive settings: Legal guidelines and preferred
practices. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 49, 2835.
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 dps.sagepub.com Downloaded from