Reducing Disparities in Academic Outcomes Among Youth of Color: Evidence From an Alternative Education Program

Grade-level advancement and GED/HiSET

Measures of student grade level were collected using the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE), a standardized, psychometrically tested assessment tool. In the United States, the TABE is the most common tool for the measurement of basic academic skills in an adult population. External validations of the TABE tool show it can be used to place adult students at the appropriate level in adult education programs, correctional education, vocational–technical programs, corporate training, union programs, and the military (Data Recognition Corporation, 2019). In the New Orleans program, a pre-test was administered at the beginning of each 18-week session, using the TABE battery in the core subjects of math, language, and reading. Students were retested at the mid-point and end of each 18-week session to assess academic progress as measured by grade-level advancement.

Quality of life

Quality of life as measured by sense of control, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction was assessed using three standardized, externally validated instruments: the Sense of Control Scale (Mirowsky & Ross, 1991), New General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen et al., 2001), and the Brief Multi-dimensional Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale (Huebner et al., 2004). Evidence links sense of control, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction to educational trajectory. A strong sense of control over one’s life correlates with better academic performance, and it is thought to improve psychological functioning (Mirowsky, 1997). General self-efficacy refers to an individual’s perception of their own capacity to perform, and studies indicate this belief in one’s competence is also related to academic performance (Scherbaum et al., 2006). For youth populations, satisfaction in life is associated with physical and mental health status as well as school engagement and academic outcomes. In particular, greater satisfaction in life predicts a stronger belief in the importance of school (Athay et al., 2012). The sense of control and self-efficacy scales have shown reliability among young adult populations in the United States and internationally (Chen et al., 2001; Wolinsky et al., 2004), and the life satisfaction scale has been proven valid and reliable among a very similar population of high school students in an urban area of a southeastern state (Funk et al., 2006). In the present study, measures for all three quality-of-life indicators were taken at the beginning and end of each 18-week educational session.

Focus groups

In addition to quantitative analysis, two focus groups were conducted to collect qualitative data using an open-ended protocol. The focus groups were cofacilitated by the study evaluator (first author), a graduate research assistant, and an employee of the nonprofit organization who was not affiliated with the alternative education program. The objective for the focus groups was to understand student perceptions of the program and identify strengths, challenges, and opinions regarding student retention, staff support, and the impact the program had in their lives (i.e., school and/or employment). The focus groups were purposive convenience samples of current and former students. Students were invited to participate by the program staff in a proposed group of 8 to 10 students. Each group was allotted 1 hr for the meeting. Participants were informed that it was a voluntary group discussion, and the premise of their participation was described as an opportunity to provide verbal feedback to the program staff and evaluation team that may be used to enhance the program. Participants, or their parent/guardian, signed informed consents prior to participation. The informed consent was reviewed verbally prior to each focus group meeting. Participants were informed that they were free to withdraw from the focus group at any point. No identifying information was linked to participant responses.

The first author routinely visited the alternative education program site during the study period and prior to conducting the focus group interviews. This established a rapport between the first author and the organization’s staff and students that is necessary to facilitate rich, authentic interviews. During the focus group sessions, interview questions were open-ended and structured to elicit in-depth responses from participants. A primary component of focus groups is the interaction and dialogue that occurs between study participants, as this allows researchers to collect rich data that would not emerge using other qualitative methods, such as one-on-one interviews (Flynn et al., 2018). In the present study, the evaluator kept a log of participant responses to interview questions on a flipchart to facilitate dialogue, while the research assistant took extensive notes by hand. Throughout the interviews, the evaluator also used probing questions to prompt further discussion among participants.

Hours of classroom instruction and support services

Based on student attendance during Years 2 and 3 of the program, an average of 190 hr of GED/HiSET instruction was provided to students. Based on attendance records, the students assigned to the all-male class maintained a higher average number of hours of instruction received (190.4 hr) when compared with the co-ed class of students (143.4 hr).

In addition to GED/HiSET instruction every day, during each session’s 18 weeks (4.5 months) of classroom time, the average student received 18 hr of direct instructional support from a paraprofessional; 4.5 hr of individual social work contact from the program coordinator; 18 hr of psychosocial group intervention from supportive services staff; 18 hr of youth advocacy and mentorship; 3 hr of individual social work contact from a social work intern; and 9 hr of individual social work contact.

Enrollment and retention

Student enrollment increased each year of the study period, with 172 students served in the first school year, 183 students in the second, and 232 students in the third school year. In addition to enrollment, retention in the program increased every year of the study. Overall, students enrolling in at least one more session of programming remained above 58% every year; the highest year on record was 73% re-enrollment in 2013. The all-male classes indicate the highest rate of retention historically, with 82% of the students returning for at least one more 18-week session. Bivariate analyses revealed that participants with a history of substance abuse and a history of mental health conditions showed a significant positive association with respect to retention in the program (See Table 2). There were several psychosocial variables that had no significant positive or negative association with retention, including the student’s living arrangement, employment status, source of income, last grade completed, nature of arrest charges, conviction of an adult crime, history of detention or jail, active probation, and parental contextual factors.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Variables Associated With Retention.

Variable	p value
Age	.037
History of school suspension	.033
History of school expulsion	.032
History of arrest	.012
Adjudication as a delinquent	.023
History of substance abuse	.007
History of mental health condition	.003
History of Child Protective Service contact	.021

Grade-level advancement and GED/HiSET

The average student entered with a grade level equivalent of grade 5.27. Eighty-nine percent of students advanced at least one grade level gain in at least one core subject. The average advancement in GED/HiSET battery pre- and post-testing was 1.34 grade levels for students enrolled in the all-male class. During the study period, 19 students from the sample obtained their GED/HiSET. Performing analyses to examine variables associated with the higher likelihood of GED/HiSET attainment revealed only one significant positive association. The highest grade level completed at enrollment, namely, ninth through 11th grade, was highly correlated with GED attainment ( p = .006). Although the other variables were not associated with GED/HiSET attainment, it is worth noting that they had no negative association either.

Quality of life

Among students in the all-male class, the average self-efficacy scores were 32.8, and the average score for the entire alternative education program was 33.12. The average self-efficacy score of 32.8 for the all-male class is considered an “above average” to “high” self-efficacy score when compared with samples of undergraduate youth who report an average score of 31.28 (Scherbaum et al., 2006). On all quality-of-life measures, the results show little to no change pre- and post-test.

Post-program employment and incarceration

In 2013–2014, staff collected data on post-program outcomes. A follow-up survey of youth who completed the program (n = 62) captured employment and incarceration data. In the first follow-up immediately after exiting the program (<30 days), 8% of respondents had full-time employment, 17% of respondents obtained part-time employment, and 75% of respondents were not employed. Forty-two percent had entered post-secondary education, and 92% said they had not been arrested. At the 1-month follow-up, 25% reported full-time employment, 25% reported part-time employment, and 75% had not been arrested since exiting the program.

Strengths and challenges

Student responses to focus group discussion of the program strengths focused on the topics of communication, flexibility, and motivation. In particular, students cited the ability to speak one-on-one with their teachers about coursework as a program strength. Regarding flexibility, students reported, “Teachers work with students at their individual learning pace.” Teachers and staff were said to motivate students, give direction, and instill a focus on goals for the future. Group 2 indicated that teachers and staff were also able to help with social and familial problems, acting as “peacekeepers” or “father figures.” In response to the question of challenges or weaknesses of the program, the most common student answers were flexibility and distractions. Although flexibility was also described as a strength by some participants, other students found that this component of the program allowed students to grow too comfortable and fall behind in their class work. Similarly, students reported that the social nature of the program could hinder progress, “Some students see [the program] as a gathering place, or somewhere to go . . . Not a place to study and do class work.” In these instances, students gathering to socialize were described as a distraction to others.

Attendance and retention

When asked to discuss what motivated them to return to the program, all participants indicated that successfully completing the GED/HiSET was their primary motivation. In addition, participants also mentioned receiving feedback on class work, access to resources (i.e., employment, financial aid, resume development, and housing), and the opportunity to learn as motivations to continue attending. Student responses to the question of why they or others stopped attending the program focused on time commitment, lack or loss of motivation, and responsibilities outside of coursework. Specifically, students indicated that GED/HiSET obtainment can be too long a process, resulting in diminished focus. Regarding responsibilities outside the program, family or children and the need to work and pay for necessities were described as the primary reasons for not regularly attending sessions. To motivate students to remain in the program until graduation, participants recommended additional mentoring or outreach as well as more assistance with resume development, job placement, or college enrollment. When asked to describe outreach, the students discussed a need for more involvement from teachers or staff beyond classroom hours, such as “Having teachers look for students at their homes when they miss too many classes.” Other participants suggested incentives, such as free lunches or a daycare center, for participants with children.

Staff and community programming

Participants were asked to identify which additional mentoring or services in the community beyond the program classroom would be most helpful to them. The majority of responses examined employment and outreach. Regarding employment, students shared that it would be helpful to, “Recruit [community partners] that actually have a job to offer.” Outreach by teachers and staff was also noted, with specific reference to the program’s efforts to ensure student attendance. When asked to discuss which staff impacted their decisions to continue working toward goals, the most common responses were the program’s social workers and teachers. The social workers were said to, “Inspire students and help to talk about problems and . . . find solutions,” while teachers were described as being helpful with the understanding and completion of class work. In a discussion of which staff were less impactful, both groups indicated that all teachers and staff have a role in the program and an impact on students.