Abstract

For students at risk of not graduating due to circumstances including juvenile delinquency, mental health, and teen parenthood, California provides a solution: “continuation high schools.” Today, there are nearly 46,000 students enrolled in these programs, yet they still face constant stigma and subpar status to traditional counterparts. Recently, the state’s allocation of $80 million for “alternative education” renewed conversations on how districts prioritize their most vulnerable students. On the other side of the spectrum, California’s elite public high schools are lauded nationally for their academic competitiveness. Associated with these schools are a culture of extreme academic pressure, where failure is often seen as unacceptable. When these two types of schools exist within the same district, the disparities are even more visible--and heightened. Although it stands to reason that the resource gaps between schools in high-achieving, high-income districts should be less than or equal to those in lower income districts, preliminary literature reviews and data analysis in fact state the opposite (Drake, 2022). This raises the question: does the “high-achieving” status of a school district impact its prioritization of the most vulnerable students in continuation high schools? By comparing pairs of continuation schools and high-achieving regular schools within the same district, this project aims to explore how prioritization of continuation high schools and their high-achieving comprehensive counterparts compare, using case studies and state data to evaluate within-district differences in resources, facilities, representation, and stigma.

Research Objectives & Questions

For this independently-proposed project, my main objective is to determine whether the label of high-achieving has an observable positive or negative effect on the quality/quantity of support given to students in continuation high schools. My secondary objective is to identify potential explanations for the resource gap between high-achieving regular high schools and their corresponding continuation high school. 

Key Questions

Do continuation schools in “High-Achieving School Districts” receive comparable support and resources to their comprehensive counterparts?
Do “High-Achieving School Districts” have smaller resource gaps between the students in continuation schools and comprehensive schools? If so, what are potentially causal policies?

Background

As “the most understudied sub-sector of secondary education in California and nationally,” continuation high schools require extensive research (de Velasco et al. 2008). Studies have been conducted since the 1990s, as the inaugural “Model Continuation High School” award drew attention from authorities. Several descriptive studies comparing multiple continuation high schools conclude, among major findings, that there is a wide variation within these programs in “mission, design, program, philosophy, resources, and challenges,” to varying degrees of success (Lynne and Johnson, 2008). Since the initial wave of studies in the late 2000s, many studies on continuation high schools focus on reviewing key, established performance indicators and policy recommendations. The Gardner Center at Stanford University spearheads the California Alternative Education Program, conducting biyearly literature reviews and descriptive studies. However, there is a distinct absence of qualitative and quantitative descriptive studies done within districts to compare continuation and traditional schools. Moreover, achievement and resource gaps like these may be disproportionately augmented in high-achieving districts lauded for their educational excellence. The highest-achieving districts in California tend to also be the most affluent, and income is strongly positively correlated with high achievement (Owens 2017). Building upon a recent characterization of a “criminalization of failure” in a single California suburb, this study will attempt to address the variation observed in studies almost two decades ago, especially in light of the state budget bringing this to light once again (Drake 2022). 

Methodology

A mixed-methods descriptive analysis will be used to answer the objectives of this project. Utilizing the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and state education data, I will compile a list of all active continuation high schools and all active public comprehensive (regular) high schools that have a continuation high school in their district. Then, I will randomly select 10 high-achieving regular high schools from that list, and pair them with a continuation high school from their district, using matching methods to mitigate any demographic confounders. Parameters used for selection include eligibility for free/reduced lunch, median household income, average standardized test scores, and graduation rates.

For each pair of schools, I will conduct descriptive quantitative and qualitative analyses, comparing the state of facilities, health inspections, budget per student, CAASPP scores, and other relevant factors. Accountability reports conducted by the state, district, and/or independent inspection agencies from the 2022-2023 school year will be used for this analysis. Some early examples include the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), NCES data, and CCEIS reports (an equity benchmarking system). From the results of this quantitative analysis, I will examine the local and state policies that might lead to the differences observed (Loeb et al. 2017). Overall, the methodology has not changed since the initial proposal, and no IRB approval is required as I am not collecting primary data. 

Potential Impact

As a model of more individualized, flexible education that serves the most vulnerable students in a community, continuation high schools can become a solution for equity. However, when looking at the gaps between continuation and comprehensive schools at a state level, it is easy to miss the level of individual prejudice that contributes to the aggregated inequalities. The gaps faced in these districts may be less severe than those that are low-performing overall–but the unique problem is that funds and social attitudes in high performing districts are often leveraged directly against those that are still vulnerable. Districts with high-achieving and highly ranked schools need to continue to provide active support for all students, and this research aims to provide some direction on where to begin redirecting their focus. 

Resources & Support Needed

My faculty mentor, Professor Nora Gordon, has been advising me throughout this project. I am grateful for her support and anticipate utilizing data tools like Edunomics, ELSI, and other NCES sources. I would also like to express my gratitude towards the Laidlaw program at Georgetown and the resources provided by the Center for Research and Fellowships. 

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback regarding my research!