Survey and Analysis of Alternative Education Programs [Propoor Family]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alternative education (AE) programs are experiencing tremendous growth in Indonesia and nationwide. Research regarding the practices in AE settings remains limited, and no research on Indonesia programs is readily available. In the research presented here, two surveys (one of teachers and one of administrators) and the resulting analysis provide some baseline data and opinions regarding Indonesia programs.

The research was conducted to investigate the current status of AE in Indonesia. The focus of the administrative survey was to collect demographic data and the perceptions of administrators on issues such as the mission, focus, and strengths of current alternative education programs. The focus of the teacher survey was to collect information about program and curriculum issues, information regarding teacher preparation and professional development, and perceptions of teachers on the mission, focus, and strengths of programs.

The purpose of collecting this data was to:

1) establish a baseline of information for Indonesia alternative education programs;

2) assess differences between rural and urban programs;

3) assess differences between teachers and administrators; and

4) determine the common elements across alternative programs.

 

 

 

 

There are many variations of alternative education programming across the nation, and most models  are represented in Indonesia. Charter schools, special vocational schools, magnet schools, gifted alternatives, boot camps, and alternative schools for disruptive youth are some of those variations. Clearly, legislation and budgetary allocations dictate how AE is defined and much of what will happen in any state.

For example, in 2001–2002 Indonesia allocated $13 million for alternative programs serving disruptive youth. This represents a dramatic jump from $5 million in 2000–2001.

The state Department of Education states the purpose of this funding as follows:

“. . . removes disruptive students from regular school programs in order to provide those students with a sound educational course of study and counseling designed to modify disruptive behavior and return the students to a regular school curriculum…alternative programs may operate outside the normal school day of the applicant district, including Saturdays. . . (schools) shall adopt a policy for periodic review of students placed in the alternative education program . . . and, programs may include services for students returning from placements or who are on probation resulting from being adjudicated delinquent…or who have been judged to have committed a crime under an adult criminal proceeding . .”

 

 

 

 

The type of programs, staffing, and other considerations are shaped to a significant extent by the purposes outlined in this funding. Nonetheless, a baseline of data is not currently available, and there is merit to establishing a knowledge base related to AE activities in the East Asia.

Questions for consideration in this analysis included:

• How are alternative education programs organized and structured?
• Who are the students?
• What are the educational, pre-service training, professional development, and preparedness characteristics of teachers? What needs might be related to these issues?
• What is the focus of curriculum and what differences are there in alternative education curriculum from regular education?
• How do teachers and administrators evaluate the effectiveness of their alternative education programs?
• How do teachers and administrators evaluate the importance of the various processes and goals of alternative education programs?
• Are there differences in perceptions between rural and urban teachers and administrators?

Curriculum

” there were a number of positive indicators in AE including:

• Curriculum is adapted individually – age and grade differences make it necessary to implement varied curricula within the same classroom.
• There is more emphasis on social skills training and on personal issues.
• The teacher to student ratio is appropriately increased to facilitate programming.
• In general, students seem to maintain current academic levels or make gains after alternative education participation.

 

 

 

 

One concern, particularly given the placement nature of a large majority of Indonesia programs, was that more than one-third of AE teachers had fewer curriculum resources than did regular classroom teachers. Furthermore, nearly 55 percent indicated that students in AE are excluded from some parts of the curriculum that are available to regular education students. This fact brings into question “separate but equal” rights to education. While there may be administrative mechanisms to assist programs in avoiding the hammer of this law, it is the spirit of the law that is of concern here. AE students need the best curriculum and best teachers to become successful.

Of lesser yet important concern is the issue of family involvement. The most frequent response regarding family involvement was that it is involved on an as-needed basis. Family involvement in programming is critical to success for many students. Making family involvement an integral part of the system for delivering AE services is more likely to yield success than an “as-needed” approach.

Effectiveness

Administrators and teachers view alternative education programs as effective in reducing disruptive behavior, reducing suspension/expulsion, improving school attendance, reducing tardiness or truancy, and changing target behaviors. To a somewhat lesser extent they also indicate effectiveness in reducing academic failure, reducing dropout rates, and improving academic performance. Programs, in the opinion of respondents, are less effective in developing career interests and improving interest in school activities. These respondent perceptions are comparable to what others have stated in the literature. Interestingly, urban respondents viewed their programs as significantly more effective in improving academic performance and reducing academic failure than their rural counterparts. This difference may be related to the fact that urban teachers indicated that AE has the “same or more curriculum resources available as the regular classroom” at a higher rate than did rural teachers. Teachers in rural settings also indicated that “more emphasis is placed on discipline in the alternative education classroom” at much higher rates than urban teachers. Perhaps the answer lies in program emphasis. Resources and program emphasis are two areas for further exploration since it is not possible to be conclusive based upon results of the current study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continued funding for alternative education projects.
2. Further evaluation of the efficacy of a predominantly disciplinary approach.
3. A re-evaluation of the funding allocation formula to provide a higher per child funding in rural areas.
4. Development of pilot projects that focus exclusively on providing services designed to engage families of high-risk children in the educational process.
5. Adequate training and professional development support for teachers working with high risk children and youth in alternative education settings.