|
|
The HILA Program - Complementary education for school-excluded youth: an evaluation study
Paula Kahan-Strawczynski
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003
Abstract
The HILA program is part of the system of educational services for disengaged youth, which is implemented across the country by the Youth at Risk Advancement Service - Ministry of Education. The program aims to supplement the education of youth aged 14-18 who have dropped out of school or reintegrate them into formal education frameworks.
The goal of the study was to examine the organization and outcomes of the program. Information was gathered using questionnaires for directors of the centers and the students and interviews with staff. A follow-up of these HILA students was conducted a year and a half later.
Selected findings:
Most of the students came from a weak academic background. More than half entered the HILA program after completing only the eighth or ninth grade. One-quarter had been out of any study framework for one year. Most of the students were satisfied with the program. The teachers reported that most of the students demonstrated satisfactory learning behavior and adapted well to the program. Despite the high level of satisfaction expressed, the follow up study showed disappointing academic results. Most of the students left the program or completed it without any certificate, and failed to pass even one exam.
Introduction
For many years, the policy of Israel's Ministry of Education has been directed at promoting the student population in general, and vulnerable students, in particular. Through the Youth Advancement Service of the Youth and Society Administration, the Ministry of Education has established a network of community-based social, therapeutic, and educational services for youth who have dropped out of school. In addition to working with disengaged youth who are neither working nor attending school, the Youth Advancement Service works with youth who are working or attending school, but who have adjustment difficulties that place them at risk of dropping out. The Youth Advancement Service provides a range of therapeutic and educational services, including personal mentors, social and values education, vocational education and, for the past 15 years, the HILA Program for school-excluded youth. This program was developed out of the realization that education is an important component of the rehabilitation and promotion of disengaged youth.
A Description of the Program
The HILA Program intends to help disengaged youth ages 14-18 to either complete their basic education, or re-enter a regular school. The program also provides educational enrichment.
By offering several "tracks" or options for study, the program enables students to receive a certificate of completion of either eight, nine, or ten years of education; a certificate in vocational and academic skills; a high school equivalency certificate; or a matriculation certificate in one subject. In Israel, a matriculation certificate is the formal requirement of most jobs and higher education opportunities. Thus, by providing matriculation-oriented tracks, the HILA Program gives youth the opportunity to begin acquiring this certificate. The program also offers tracks that do not culminate in a certificate; these include the "enrichment" track, which teaches basic and supplemental skills. The program monitors students who re-enter the regular education system. In most of the tracks, instruction is individual, and follows a curriculum adapted for the student's level, abilities, and areas of interest. The high school equivalency track involves group instruction only.
The program is implemented by branches of the Youth Advancement Service through education centers in various cities. Youth who are deemed appropriate for the program are referred to these centers, whose director formally admits them to the program and guides them to the appropriate track and teacher. Students who attend the HILA Program receive an average of four hours of instruction per week. As noted, the students also receive therapeutic services from a Youth Advancement Service counselor, and participate in appropriate social and educational activities.
At present, about 4,000 students are enrolled in the HILA Program in 120 education centers around Israel. The program is implemented for the Jewish, Arab, and immigrant populations, as well as for youth who reside in locked institutions.
A study conducted in 1997-19981 (Kahan-Strawczynski, Dolev and Shemesh, 1999) revealed that about 30% of all of the clients of the Youth Advancement Service, and about 50% of the clients who are not attending school, were enrolled in the HILA Program. Since not all clients of the Youth Advancement Service who had dropped out of school were in the program, and since there was no systematic data on the program at that time, the Youth Advancement Service initiated a comprehensive, structured evaluation of the program. The goal of this evaluation was to examine whether the HILA Program achieves its aims, how it influences its participants, and how it is organized and implemented. In this article, I will present some of the evaluation's findings regarding the program's achievements and influence on students.
The information presented in this article was collected using three tools: (a) a self-administered questionnaire to the student; (b) a questionnaire about the student, which was completed by the director of the education center and the student's teacher (both of these questionnaires concerned only students who had joined the program at the end of 1999); and (c) a form for monitoring program participants, which was completed by the director of each education center for all students included the study about 18 months after they had joined the program. A total of 470 questionnaires and 820 monitoring forms were received by the researchers.
A Review of the Literature
Before presenting the findings from the evaluation, I will briefly review the literature on alternative education programs.
The Phenomenon of Dropping Out of School
Analysis of the professional literature discloses four factors that are associated with dropping out of school: (1) personal factors (Wehlage and Rutter, 1986; Bachman et al., 1971; Croner, 1988; Rehavia and Frieman, in Sasson-Peretz, 1988); (2) family factors (Janosz et al., 2000; Barr and Parrett, 1995; Frank, 1990; Alexander et al., 1997; Cairns et al., 1989); (3) school factors (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Brad, 1986; Toles et al., 1986; Karp, 1988; Wolman, 1989; Fine, 1986); and environmental factors (Jordan et al., 1996). Until recently, attempts to explain and address the phenomenon of dropping focused on the dropouts' characteristics. They claimed that dropping out was the result of difficulties that kept the student from adjusting to and deriving the maximum benefit from school. Today it is recognized that the process that concludes with a student's leaving school is complex, and is influenced by a multitude of factors, some of which arise from the student and his environment, and others of which arise from the school system. Programs like HILA, which are meant to help school dropouts obtain an education, must address all of the factors that influence this phenomenon.
Addressing the Needs of Youth Who Have Dropped Out of School
Consequently, the response to this phenomenon integrates a variety of methods. These are adapted to the dropouts, and attempt to respond to their various needs while generating a positive learning experience.
Many programs for dropouts provide supplemental education, on one hand, and rehabilitative services, on the other (Langone et al., 1992; Johnson and Geller, 1992; Klarin, 1993). They assume that the many, cumulative gaps between dropouts and youth who continue to attend school arise from manifold needs. They therefore employ special teaching methods, which are adapted to meet these needs.
Principal Attributes of Alternative Programs for School Dropouts
Traditionally, alternative programs for dropouts have been thought of as a substitute for regular schools, and are described in negative relation to them as not schools, for students who have not succeeded in school. Today, an increasingly large body of research indicates that students who were labeled "failures" in school, blossom in alternative frameworks.
A review of the goals of alternative programs reveals that some strive to help the students achieve scholastically, while others strive to help the students learn to adjust socially and emotionally. In effect, most alternative programs combine these goals, though they may differ in the one they emphasize.
Alternative programs may be provided within school structures, or outside of them. This in large part determines their attitude toward the regular school. According to Hefner-Packer (1991), programs that are implemented in schools are usually brief in duration, and aim to return the student to the regular framework by increasing his motivation to learn and reducing gaps. In contrast, programs that operate outside of schools are usually longer in duration, and set discrete goals for the student, unrelated to those of the regular school. These constitute a "corrective" educational experience, which teaches study habits in addition to basic skills. Some researchers claim that programs that return students to regular schools are rarely successful (Barr and Parrett, 1977).
Shared Characteristics of Alternative Education Programs
Although the programs differ among themselves, they share certain characteristics, which differentiate them from regular schools. Below I review these characteristics in greater detail.
Curricula and teaching methods
Studies have revealed that the quality of teaching, the placement of students in homogeneous proficiency groups, and the communication of low expectations can cause students to drop out of school (Brad, 1986; Toles et al., 1986; Karp, 1988; Wolman, 1989; Fine, 1986; Darling-Hammond, 1997).
Although the students who attend alternative education programs are particularly difficult to teach, these programs are often a "success story": Their scholastic achievements and behavior improve, and their dropout rate declines (Kentucky Department of Education, 2001; Boss, 2001). Many of these programs hold that while it is possible to force a child to attend school, it is impossible to force him to learn. Therefore, the program must first of all induce students to want to learn (Boss, 2001). As studies have indicated, these programs emphasize not what they teach, but rather how they teach (Boss, 2001). This involves study in small groups, which enables students to make up the material they missed in larger, less personal regular school classes (Barr and Parrett, 1977; Wehlage and Rutter, 1986); a focused curriculum with realistic goals; flexibility and openness to student choice, which increases the student's motivation to persevere (Neumann, 1991); and an holistic approach, which leads them to include rehabilitative services (Barnes and Stewart, 1991), attractive subjects that are not part of the national curriculum, and life skills. Together, these elements provide students with a positive, corrective learning experience that will increase their motivation to learn and function in other frameworks, as well. In addition, some programs (like the HILA Program) continue to monitor students even after they have left the program (D'Evelyn, 1987).
Staff
Many researchers believe that the teachers' devotion is essential to a program's success. Hence, the choice of teachers who feel it is their "mission" to teach these sometimes difficult students, is essential (Barr and Parrett, 1977; Kleiner et al., 2002; Alternative Schooling Overview). Usually, such teachers have an inherent belief in the students' ability to learn. They consequently set high standards for the students, and clearly explain their expectations (Alternative Schooling Overview; Kleiner, 2002; Barr and Parrett, 1977).
In addition, the staff of alternative education programs is often more heterogeneous than that of a regular school, including teachers, educational guidance counselors, social workers, youth counselors, and even psychologists, physicians, or police officers. It has been claimed that the more heterogeneous the faculty, the greater the chances that a student will find someone to relate to, and the greater the chances that the faculty will understand the difficulties of youth at risk (Alternative to School Exclusion).
In addition, a heterogeneous staff often includes professionals with ties to community frameworks. This generates support for youth at risk, and affords the youth direct access to community services (Alternative Schooling Overview; Kleiner, 2002).
Student-teacher relations
Some researchers feel that the inter-personal relationship between students and teachers is crucial to a program's success, even more than are the teaching methods and curriculum (Alternative Schooling Overview; Boss, 2001), and make learning a positive experience (Pomeroy, 2000; Cohen-Navot, forthcoming; Cohen, 1996). In addition, teachers can reinforce students as people (Pomeroy, 2000), and even serve as a surrogate for the students' sometimes problematic families (D'Evelyn, 1987).
A program for individual assistance in Israel: the HILA Program
The HILA Program is geared for youth who have dropped out of regular schools, alternative schools, and other supplemental education and preventive programs. Like many of the programs described in the above literature review, the HILA Program faces the challenge of offering youth who have dropped out of every other possible framework something "else", which will meet the range of needs that characterize them.
Findings
Characteristics of HILA Students
We examined the demographic characteristics of students in the HILA Program, to determine who the program served. In addition, we were interested in understanding what characterizes students who are likely to find themselves in a program like HILA. The findings indicate that the majority (74%) of students are boys. More than half of them were age 17 or older, and about one-quarter of them were age 18 or older (Table 1).
Most (77%) HILA students were born in Israel and almost one-quarter of them are immigrants: 20% of the students were born in the former Soviet Union, and 3% were born in other countries (Table 1).
The breakdown of students by nationality reveals that more than one-third (35%) of them are Arab.
Previous Scholastic Background of HILA Students
Table 2 presents the distribution of HILA students by last grade completed. Ten percent of them entered the program after having completed the only sixth or seventh grade, and 60% after having completed the eighth or ninth grade.
Table 2: Last Class Completed by Students before Entering HILA (in %)
|
School Grade |
Percentage |
|
Total |
100 |
|
Sixth-seventh |
10 |
|
Eighth-ninth |
60 |
|
Tenth |
22 |
|
Eleventh-twelfth |
8 |
It is important to determine the time that elapsed between a student's dropping out of school and his or her entering the HILA Program - that is, how long he was without any framework - as this indicates the degree to which he may have distanced himself from study. This, in turn, may predict the student's chances of re-entering a regular school. As can be seen in Table 4, 64% of the HILA students entered the program immediately after leaving their previous framework. In contrast, one-quarter of the students were not in any framework for a year, and 10% remained without a framework for as much as two or more years.
As might have been expected, a large percentage of the students who were referred to HILA by the staff of their previous school did not spend any time without an education framework. This indicates that a connection between formal and alternative education frameworks contributes to finding an appropriate solution for the student as quickly as possible.
However, almost half of all of the students were "disengaged" at some point while enrolled in school - that is, they were unjustifiably absent from school for more than one month continuously. This is also known as "hidden dropping out", and indicates that these students were having difficulty adjusting to school, even before they formally "dropped out".
Table 3: Time Students Spent Outside Any Framework before Entering the HILA Program (in %)
|
Time Spent Outside Any Framework |
Percentage |
|
Total |
100 |
|
None |
64 |
|
One year |
26 |
|
Two or more years |
10 |
|
Students who were "disengaged" in the past |
45 |
Students' Level of Achievement in Basic Skills at Entry into the HILA Program
It is the policy that all applicants be tested in basic skills by the director of the education center before beginning to attend the HILA Program. Table 4 presents the directors' reports on the students' level of achievement, relative to that of their peers. As can be seen in the Table, about one-third of the students had poor reading comprehension and writing skills, and nearly one-third of them had a limited vocabulary and/or made a great many spelling errors.
Table 4: Students' Level in Basic Skills at Entry into the HILA Program (in %)
|
Level |
Percentage |
|
Poor reading comprehension1 |
32 |
|
Poor writing skills2 |
36 |
|
Poor vocabulary3 |
29 |
1
Understands oral communication only, or has difficulty understanding even oral communicationThese data indicate that HILA students experienced severe problems within the school system; they were unable to keep up with their class, were detached from school, and probably found it difficult to perform even basic tasks. Alternative education programs for such youth thus face the major challenges of restoring their confidence in their ability and creating a positive learning experience while promoting their achievements. This study thus examined the students' experience, behavior, and compliance with the program, as well as their scholastic outcomes.
Students' Attitudes toward the HILA Program
The study examined the students' attitudes toward the HILA Program, their teachers, and the education center, as a measure of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the program.
The findings in Table 5 reveal that almost half (46%) of the students reported that they "definitely enjoyed" coming to the education center, and 45% reported that they "enjoyed" coming to the center. However, about 40% reported that they were "occasionally" bored by their studies.
We found that girls had a more positive attitude toward the education center and their studies than did boys: A larger percentage of the boys did not really enjoy coming to the center, and reported that their studies bored them "all the time" (10% versus 4% of the girls) or "often" (11% versus 3% of the girls). These findings corroborate some of those regarding the program's outcomes, by gender. Most of the students felt that what they learned at HILA will help them in the future. The majority (96%) of them felt that their teachers care about them.
*
Differences are significant by gender, according to a χ2 test; (p=0.05)The Students' Functioning and Behavior in the Program
The scholastic functioning and the behavior of the students are important indicators of their progress in the program. In the questionnaire about the students, teachers were presented with a variety of statements about the students' scholastic functioning, behavior, and relations with them. Using factor analysis, we divided these statements into the following areas:
Scholastic functioning: grasps and understands things quickly, expresses himself clearly orally and in writing, displays originality, displays confidence when performing assignments.
Study habits: can concentrate for a protracted time, actively participates in class, does assignments independently, is attentive and listens in class, does homework as required, brings supplies to class, takes interest in the material learned, strives to succeed, finishes what he has started. Regular attendance: misses lessons, is late for lessons. Relations with the teacher: it is a pleasure for the teacher to work with him, has a positive attitude toward the teacher, discusses personal matters with the teacher. Behavior problems: lacks discipline, bothers other students, is aggressive, lies and cheats, vandalizes center property, becomes embroiled in fights, disturbs lessons, swears or uses vulgar language, disrespects teachers.
As can be seen in Table 6, the scholastic functioning of 70% of the students was normal. The study habits of nearly 80% of the students were normal, although those of the girls were better than those of the boys (95% and 75%, respectively). The teachers noted that they had good relations with 84% of the students. One-quarter of the students were reported to have problems attending regularly, but only 2% of the students were reported to have behavior problems.
Despite these generally positive results, measures of academic success and follow-up of the students reveal that they did not make the progress that they might have been expected to make, based on their functioning.
Table 6: Teachers' Reports of the Students' Functioning (in %)
|
Functioning |
Percentage |
|
Normal scholastic functioning |
70 |
|
Good study habits* |
79 |
|
Truancy |
24 |
|
Good relations with teachers |
84 |
|
Behavior problems |
2 |
*
Differences are significant by gender, according to a χ2 test; (p<0.05)The Outcome of the Program for Students
To assess the students' actual progress in or because of the program, we used several outcome measures, including the situation of the students one and a half years after their entry into the program (whether they were still attending the program or had completed it, or whether they had re-entered a regular school); the number of examinations a student had passed (including at least one matriculation examination for students in the matriculation and high school equivalency tracks); any certificates received by a student; and dropping out of the program.
a. The students' situation one and a half years after entering the program
As can be seen in Table 7, 28% of the students were still in the program one and a half years after entering it. More than one-fifth (22%) of them had completed their studies. This includes all students who completed one or more tracks (that is, who received one or more certificates and were no longer in the program), as well as students who had to leave the program because they were conscripted into military service.
The Table also indicates that 8% of the students were reintegrated into school, about 60% of them into an academic school (totaling about 4% of all those in the program). About half of these students re-entered a regular school within six months of their admission to HILA.
Conversely, 42% of the students dropped out of the program without completing their study track. A further analysis indicated that about 40% of the students did not receive any certificate, and the majority of them did not pass any test.
Table 7: Status of HILA Program Students at the Time of Follow-up, by Track and Sector (in %)
|
Status |
Percentage |
|
Total |
100 |
|
Continue to attend the program |
28 |
|
Completed the program* |
22 |
|
Were reintegrated into a regular school |
8 |
|
Dropped out |
42 |
*
Includes both students who completed the track they were in, and those who were conscriptedb. Passing examinations while attending the HILA Program
The second outcome measure concerned the students' achievements, which were measured through the number of examinations they passed. This measure was chosen because of the importance ascribed to the sense of success that students feel when they pass a test - an essential step toward achieving the program's goals.
The findings in Table 8 reveal that almost 60% of the students never passed any test, 17% passed one or two tests, and about one-quarter of the students passed three or more tests. Ten percent of the students - most of them in the matriculation or high school equivalency tracks - passed at least one matriculation examination.
As noted above, girls functioned better scholastically than boys; this was also reflected in their test taking. A larger percentage of boys (61%) than girls (55%) did not pass a single examination. In contrast, a larger percentage of girls passed five or more examinations (18% versus 16% of the boys), and/or at least one matriculation examination (10% versus 8%, of the boys).
*Differences are significant by gender, according to a χ2 test; (p<0.05)
c. Receipt of certificates
The third outcome measure we examined was the receipt of a certificate (or, for students in the matriculation track, passing a matriculation examination).This measure included both actual receipt of a certificate, and eligibility for a certificate. Table 10 reveals that 52% of the students left the program without receiving any certificate. This percentage includes dropouts, students who completed the "enrichment" track (which does not grant a certificate), and students who were conscripted.
Thirty percent of all of the students did receive a certificate; some of them completed their studies, while others continue to attend the program. Table 9 indicates that 18% of the students had yet to receive any certificate, but continued to attend the program; it is therefore possible that they will yet receive one. This percentage includes students still attending the HILA Program, and those who have re-entered a regular school.
Table 9: Program Outcomes Regarding the Conferral of Certificates (in %)
|
Outcome Measure |
Percentage |
|
Total |
100 |
|
Left the program with no certificate |
52 |
|
Received or is eligible for a certificate |
30 |
|
Have yet to receive a certificate, still attend the program** |
18 |
*
Differences are significant by gender, according to a χ2 test; (p<0.05)**
Percentage of students still attending HILA, or who were reintegrated into a regular schoold. Dropping out
Since the HILA Program represents a second - and sometimes last - chance for the student to acquire some education, it is particularly important to establish who drops out. In order to understand this phenomenon in depth, we examined whether the students had passed any examinations, the duration of their participation in the program, who or what induced them to leave the program, and their reasons for dropping out.
As noted, 42% of the students left the program without completing their study track. They may be classified into two groups. The first includes students who left without passing even one test, while the second includes students who passed at least one test. Three-quarters of the students who dropped out never passed even one test.
Table 10 presents the duration of participation in the program among dropouts, as well as who induced the student to leave school, by gender. As can be seen in the Table, students who dropped out of the program usually did so after having attended for between six months and one year (42%). Twenty-eight percent of the students dropped out during the first three months of the program, 13% dropped out after between three and six months, and 17% dropped out after they had been in the program for a year or more.
Table 10: The Duration of Participation in the HILA Program among Dropouts, and the Person Who Induced the Student to Leave, by Gender (in %)
†Differences are significant by gender, according to a χ2 test; (p<0.05)
**Percentages do not total to 100, as it was possible to cite more than one person
Usually, it was the student himself who decided to drop out (83%), although this was more often the case among boys than among girls. In 8% of the cases, the education center asked the student to leave. The family also had greater sway over girls than boys: 19% of the girls who dropped out were induced to do so by their families, compared to 6% of the boys who dropped out.
The most common reason cited for dropping out was disinterest in studying (51%). Only a very small percentage (2%) of the students reported dropping out because they were dissatisfied with the program. Ten percent left for financial reasons. Small percentages of the students cited other reasons, such as a desire to study a subject or vocation not offered by the program, moving away, poor health, and having committed a criminal offense.
A multivariate analysis (logistic regression) revealed that certain characteristics increase the probability of dropping out of the program: being a boy (as opposed to a girl); being born in Israel (as opposed to being an immigrant); and being in a track to complete eight or nine years of education (as opposed to one of the other tracks).
According to this analysis, neither nationality (Jewish or Arab) nor age significantly influenced the probability of dropping out. However, region did have an effect: Students from the three regions of the country with the largest cities were more likely to drop out - perhaps because these cities offer a relatively large number of alternative programs.
Differences by Gender and Nationality
We were particularly interested in understanding in greater depth the differences between male and female students, and between Arab and Jewish students.
According to several of the measures we used, girls were in a better situation than boys. This is somewhat of a paradox. Since the dropout rate of girls in the normative education system is lower than that of boys, we may assume that girls who attend the HILA Program are in particular distress. However, it seems that these girls nevertheless function better than do the boys, whose initial situation may be less severe.
Also, we found differences between Arab and Jewish students. The following were the most striking:
A larger percentage of Arab students (16%) than Jewish students (7%) entered the program after having dropped out of a lower grade (i.e. sixth or seventh grade).
A larger percentage of Arab students had poor reading comprehension, writing skills, and vocabulary, relative to their peers. A larger percentage of Arab students (43%) than Jewish students (21%) continued to attend the program, and therefore it is not surprising that a smaller percentage of Arab students (25%) dropped out, relative to Jewish students (49%). A smaller percentage of Arab students (42%) than Jewish students (56%) left the program without receiving any certificate. The Arab students who dropped out spent more time in the program than did Jewish dropouts. Jewish students were more apt to decide on their own to drop out, while Arab students were more likely to be influenced by their family to drop out. Education centers in the Arab sector asked a larger percentage of students to leave than did education centers in the Jewish sector (12% versus 5%, respectively).
It is important to understand that the Arab students' weak educational background dictates their integration into study tracks such as the enrichment track, which do not grant a certificate. For these students, the program primarily constitutes a framework, and succeeds in keeping them engaged for a relatively long time. Even those who dropped out of the program did so after having attended it longer than did their Jewish peers.
We would note that no statistically significant differences were found between students who were born in Israel, and immigrant students.
Discussion and Implications
This article presents selected findings of an evaluation study of students in the HILA Program. Following are a number of principal conclusions and directions for action that arise from the findings.
It should be noted that 28% of the students were still in the program a year and a half after entering it. This may be seen to indicate the success of the program in providing a normative, regular framework. On the other hand, a relatively large percentage (41%) of the students never received any certificate, and the majority of them never passed a test. This raises a question as to the significance of perseverance in the program: Is it the program's aim to merely "keep the students off the streets", and teach them minimally; or is the program meant to help its participants succeed, in the normative scholastic sense?
Indeed, the program takes the approach that it is very important for the youth to pass tests and earn certificates, not only because these have significance in and of themselves, but also because doing so carries with it an experience of success that is generally foreign to these students. Given this, it is worrisome that more than half of the students left the program without receiving any certificate, and that 60% of them never passed a single test. Conversely, however, one-quarter of the students did pass at least three tests, and 10% of them passed at least one matriculation examination.
Since the program is a last opportunity for youth who have dropped out of every other formal education framework, attention must be paid to the phenomenon of dropping out of the program. The findings that 42% of the students dropped out of HILA without completing their study track, and that three-quarters of them left without passing a single test, are extremely worrying. An in-depth examination should be conducted of this phenomenon, to identify factors that might prevent students from leaving the program.
The above findings are somewhat perplexing, given that others of the study's findings reveal that the students function in and adjust well to the program. Moreover, the students expressed a great deal of satisfaction with the program and the teachers. Furthermore, an organizational analysis of the program revealed that most of the underlying principles - belief in the student's ability, flexibility, a special atmosphere - were successfully implemented, and that the teachers and administrators were committed to the program and its students. How is it, then, that the outcomes of the program did not meet expectations? One of the most important inputs into the program is the number of hours per week that a student spends studying. The findings revealed that the students studied for an average of four hours per week. While most of the students also met with a Youth Advancement Service counselor and participated in other activities sponsored by the Service - as dictated by the program's holistic approach - their scholastic needs were being met for a very limited amount of time. Although the holistic approach has much to recommend it, more attention should be paid to the weight afforded education among all of the other components of this approach. The past two years have seen a trend toward increasing the number of hours of education provided through the HILA Program in small groups. This trend is extremely important and should be reinforced.
Lastly, attention should be paid to a clear definition of the program's goals and their priority. Is it the program's principal goal to see the students succeed, including obtaining certificates that will enable them to continue to study in or outside of the program? Or does the program aim to give students a sense of "framework", and help them adjust to it emotionally? It is important for program planners to determine not only the "price" they are willing to have students pay for their priorities, but also the benefits they most hope the students will reap.
Bibliography
Alexander, K.L.; Entwisle, D.R.; and Horsey, C.S. 1997. "From First Grade Forward: Early Foundations of High School Dropout". Sociology of Education 70:87-107.
Alternative Schooling Overview NDPC/N - National Dropout Prevention Center/Network. http://www.dropoutprevention.org/effstrat/alt_school/altsch over.htm
Alternative to School Exclusion. Scottish Government Publications, in www.scotland.gov.uk
Bachman, J. G.; Green, S.; and Wirtanen, I. D. 1971. Dropping Out: Problem or Symptom? Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Barnes, S.; and Stewart, J. 1991. A Study of An Alternative High School: Focus, Features and Impact. Texas.
Barr, R. D.; and Parrett, W. H. 1995. Hope at Last for At- Risk Youth. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Barr, R. D.; and Parrett, W. H. 1977. "How to Create Alternative Magnet & Charter Schools". In: Alternative Education Program Resource Guide (Sept. 2001). Kentucky.
Boss, S. 2001. Learning From the Margins: The Lessons of Alternative Schools. NW- Regional Educational Laboratory. http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/summer_98/text2.html
Brad, M. 1993. "A Policy Perspective: Overcoming Gridlock Beyond Schools". In: At-Risk Students: Portraits, Policies, Programs and Practices, Donmoyer, R.; and Kos, R.(eds.), pp. 395- 400. State University of New York, Albany.
Brown, B.V.; and Emig, C. 1999. "Prevalence, Patterns and Outcomes". In: America's Disconnected Youth, Besharov, D.J. (ed.). CWLA Press. Washington, DC.
Cairns, R. B.; Cairns, B. D.; and Neckerman, H. J. 1989. "Early School Dropouts: Configurations and Determinants". Child Development 60:1437-1452.
Cohen-Navot, M. (forthcoming). Evaluation of Miftanim: Summary Research Report. JDC-Brookdale Institute, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Cohen, M. 1996. Evaluation of the "New Educational Environment" Project in Comprehensive High Schools in Beer Sheva - Report 1: Findings from the First Year of Implementation (1993/94). RR-253-96. JDC-Brookdale Institute, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Cohen-Navot. M.; Ellenbogen-Frankovits, S.; and Reinfeld, T. 2001. School Dropouts and School Disengagement. RR-381-01. JDC-Brookdale Institute, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Cohen-Navot, M.; and Givon, S. 1998. A National Evaluation Survey of Miftanim: Final Report. RR-323-98. JDC-Brookdale Institute, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Croner, Y. 1988. "Placement in Educational Tracks in Public Secular and Religious Secondary Schools". Megamot 32:58-74. (Hebrew)
D`Evelyn, D.S. 1987. Educational Clinics: Rescue Plan for Dropouts. In: Independence Institute. (IP No.3-87) http://i2i.org/publications/IP/Education/educationclinics.htm
Darling-Hammond, L. 1997. "School Reform at the Crossroads: Confronting the Central Issues of Teaching". Educational Policy 11(2):151-166.
Fine, M. 1986. "Why Urban Adolescents Drop Into and Out of Public High School". Teachers College Record 87:393-409.
Frank, R.J. 1990. "High School Dropouts: A New Look at Family Variables". Social Work in Education 13(1):34-47.
Haveman, R. and Wolfe, B. 1995. Succeeding Generations. Russell Sage, New York.
Hefner-Packer, R. 1991. Alternative Education Programs: A Prescription for Success. Monographs in Education. The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Inbar D.E. 1990. "The Legitimization of a Second Chance". In: Second Chance in Education, Inbar, D.E. (ed.). Falmer Press, Basingstoke, Hampshire.
Janosz, M.; Le Blanc, M.; Boulerice, B.; and Tremblay, R. E. 2000. "Predicting Different Types of School Dropouts: A Typology Approach with Two Longitudinal Samples". Journal of Educational Psychology 92:171-190.
Jordan, W.J.; Lara, J.; and McPartland, J.M. 1996. "Exploring the Causes of Early Dropout Among Race-Ethnic and Gender Groups". Youth and Society 28:62-94.
Kahan-Strawczynski, P.; Dolev, T.; and Shemesh, A. 1999. Survey of Youth in the Care of the Youth Advancement Service of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport's Youth and Society Administration: Characteristics, Needs and Solutions. RR-344-99. JDC-Brookdale Institute, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Karp, E. 1988. The Dropout Phenomenon in Ontario Secondary Schools: A Report to the Ontario Study of Education and the Issue of Dropouts, Student-Retention and Transition Series. ISBN-0-7729-3748-6 Ontario Department of Education, Toronto. ED 298425.
Klarin, A.R. et al. 1993. "T.I.P.S. Being at Risk and Loving It". Teacher Education and Practice 8(2):43-50.
Kleiner, B.; Porch R.; and Farris E. Statistical Analysis Report- Sept 2002. Public Alternative Schools and Programs for Students At Risk of Education Failure:2000-01. FRSS - Fast Response Survey System. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C..
Lahav, C. 2000. "Putting the Phenomenon of Youth at Risk in Perspective". In: From Disengagement to Integration, Shemesh, A. (ed.). Youth Advancement Service, Youth and Society Administration, Ministry of Education, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Lahav, C. 1999. Coping with the Phenomenon of Youth on the Margins of Society: Policy Regarding the Care of Disengaged Youth and Youth at Risk in Israel. Youth and Society Administration, Ministry of Education, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Langone, J., et al. 1992. "Co-operative School Programs in the State of Georgia: An Analysis". International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 15(1):69-74.
Lareau, A. 1987. "Social Class Differences in Family-School Relationships: The Importance of Cultural Capital". Sociology of Education 60:73-85.
Minnesota State Department of Education. 1991. A Report on Special Population. Alternate Schools Area Learning Centers. Connections/Detention Centers. Residential Treatment Centers. Minnesota Student Survey.
Munn, P.; Gwynedd, L.; and Mairi, A.C. 2000. Alternatives to Exclusion from School. Paul Chapman Publishing, London.
National Center for Education Statistics. 1995. Mini-Digest of Education Statistics 1995. Washington, DC..
Neumann, R.A. 1991. "A State Legislative Approach to Recovering Students Who Drop Out of School". Urban Education 26(3):301-09.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 1995. Our Children at Risk. Center for Education Research and Innovation, France.
Pallas, A. M.; Natriello, G.; and McDill, E.L. 1989. " The Changing Nature of the Disadvantaged Population: Current Dimensions and Future Trends". Educational Researcher 18:16-22.
Pomeroy, E. 2000. Experiencing Exclusion. Trentham Books, London.
Reynolds, D.; Sammons, P.; Stoll, L.; Barber, M.; and Hillman, J. 1996. "School Effectiveness and School Improvement in the United Kingdom". School Effectiveness and School Improvement 7 (2):133-158.
Rumberger, R.W. 1995. "Dropping Out of Middle School: A Multilevel Analysis of Students and Schools". American Educational Research Journal 32(3):583-625.
Rumberger, R.W. 1990. "Second Chance for High School Dropouts: The Costs and Benefits of Dropout Recovery Programs in the United States". In: Second Chance in Education, Inbar, D.E. (ed.). Falmer Press, Basingstoke, Hampshire.
Sasson-Peretz, V. 1998. An Examination of Variables: Self-image, Scholastic Achievements, Social Orientation, and Focus of Control in a Unique Framework for Disengaged Youth, 'Mifne'. Masters' thesis presented to Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. (Hebrew)
Solorzano, D.G. 1992. "An Exploratory Analysis of the Effects of Race, Class and Gender on Student and Parent Mobility Aspirations". Journal of Negro Education 61:30-43.
Swirsky, S. 1990. Education in Israel: The Country of Varying Paths. Dorot Publishing House, Tel Aviv. (Hebrew)
Toles, T.; Schulz, E.M.; and Rice, W. K., Jr. 1986. "A Study of Variation in Dropout Rates Attributable to Effects of High Schools". Metropolitan Education 2:30-38.
Vallerand, R. J.; Fortier, M. S.; and Guary, F. 1997. "Self-Determination and Persistence in a Real-Life Setting: Toward a Motivational Model of High School Dropout". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:1161-1176.
Wehlage, G. G.; and Rutter, R. A. 1986. "Dropping Out: How Much Do Schools Contribute to the Problem?". Teachers College Record 87:374-392.
Wolman, C.; Bruininks, R.; and Thurlow, M. L. 1989. "Dropouts and Dropout Programs: Implications for Special Education". Remedial and Special Education 10:6-21.
Notes:
The study identified the needs of various population groups, and described the responses provided by the Youth Advancement Service.