Mass.gov
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Go to Selected Program Area
 Massachusetts State Seal
 News  School/District Profiles  School/District Administration  Educator Services  Assessment/Accountability  Family & Community  
 > Administration  Finance/Grants  PK-16 Program Support  Information Services  
>
>
>
>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>
>
>

Information Services - Statistical Reports

Student Exclusions: School Year 2002–03

VII. Alternative Education

Trend data show that the majority of the excluded students that were provided alternative education services for the duration of their exclusion were served via in-district alternative programs and home tutoring. Of those student exclusion cases where alternative education was not made available, the primary reason, consistent with prior years, was that schools exercised their right to not provide it (Table 7a).

Table 7a. Alternative Education by Settings & by Reasons Not Provided
 2000–012001–022002–03
Types of Alternative Education Settings#%#%#%
Home tutoring206133101734518
In-district alternative program80750767431,03753
Alternative program in another district533764392
Private alternative setting8851096322
Work/community service setting200040
Not reported000000
Subtotal1,156 1,262 1,457 
Reason Alt Education Was Not Provided#%#%#%
Student moved/transferred221352271
Student refused/did not respond1006583553
Student was incarcerated13881141
School chose not to provide it330204102339620
Not reported002000
Subtotal465 513 492 
Totals1,621 1,775 1,949 

As shown in Table 7b, in 75 percent of all exclusions in the 2002–03 school year, students were provided with alternative education for the duration of their exclusion. Sixty-eight percent of general education students excluded from school received alternative education, an increase of five percentage points from the prior year.

Federal law requires special education students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) who are excluded from school to be offered alternative education. Ninety-five percent of the special education students excluded in 2002–03 received alternative education. Of those general education students that were referred for special education evaluation but had not yet been evaluated, 80 percent received alternative education as shown in Table 7b.

Table 7b. Alternative Education by Program Status
 2000–012001–022002–03
 #%#%#%
All Students
Alternative education provided1,156711,262*711,45775
Alternative education not provided465295122949225
Not reported
0 10 0 
General Education Students
Alternative education provided787648116396068
Alternative education not provided439374873746032
Not reported
0 0 0 
Special Education Students
Alternative education provided370944509548195
Alternative education not provided246245286
Not reported
0 0 0 
Special Education Referrals
Alternative education provided0 0 1680
Alternative education not provided0 0 420
Not reported0 0 0 

In regards to the 28 special education students who did not receive alternative education, 11 were reported as having refused or not responding to the offer of alternative education, and eight students had moved or transferred. In the case of six students, the school chose not to provide alternative education, and three students were reported as having been incarcerated.

For special education students that are excluded, placement of those students to an alternative setting is determined by either: (1) an impartial hearing officer, or (2) school personnel. In school year 2002–03, 16 percent (83 students) were removed to an alternative education setting by an impartial hearing officer and 84 percent (424 students) were removed to an alternative education setting by school personnel. For two special education students it was not reported whether the removal was by either an impartial hearing officer or school personnel.

VIII. Exclusions by School Districts

The number of districts reporting one or more student exclusions in the 2002–03 school year remained the same from the 2001–02 school year as shown in Table 8. Of those school districts that excluded students, the overwhelming majority continue to have fewer than 10 exclusions.

Table 8. Distribution of School Districts* by Number of Exclusions
 2000–012001–022002–03
Number of Exclusions#%#%#%
0244662025420655
1–3631792259024
4–9401150134613
10–19134123217
20–496212372
50–99211031
100 or more313131

The number of districts having 10 or more student exclusions has increased. In 2000–01, there were 24 districts, 28 districts in 2001–02 and 34 districts in 2002–03.

Although some districts may have excluded more than 10 students from school, they had fewer than four exclusions per 1000 students enrolled in the district due to their large student enrollment. Other districts had fewer than 10 student exclusions, but had four or more exclusions per 1000 students. As illustrated in Table 10, the number of districts reporting four or more student exclusions per 1000 students in school year 2002–03 remained the same as the previous school year.

Table 9. Districts* with Ten or More Student Exclusions
2001–02 2002–03
District#Per
1000
students
%
Alt.
Ed.
District#Per
1000
students
%
Alt.
Ed.
Springfield45818.391 Springfield58321.992
Boston1722.888Boston2213.698
Worcester1284.997Worcester1024.0100
Lawrence594.688Lawrence756.092
Holyoke395.433Holyoke567.782
Quincy384.463Lowell503.280
Lowell312.0100Plymouth343.868
Barnstable315.155Chicopee324.213
Plymouth273.041Cambridge284.1100
Chelsea254.368Quincy252.880
Chicopee253.336Assabet Valley2427.033
Dennis-Yarmouth255.656North Attleborough245.167
Malden234.24Stoughton225.377
Cambridge223.1100Greater Lawrence RVT1913.532
Revere223.882Dennis-Yarmouth194.45
Middleborough215.776Chelsea183.156
Assabet Valley1921.737Fitchburg183.072
S.E. Reg. Voc Tech1815.450Greenfield188.050
Brookline172.988Nauset179.2100
Fitchburg172.747Revere132.269
Nauset168.9100Winchendon136.946
Somerville162.819Central Berkshire125.225
Stoughton163.944Randolph123.067
Central Berkshire146.114Haverhill121.467
Oxford135.992Fall River110.973
Ayer107.110New Bedford110.8100
Braintree102.070Walpole113.036
Whittier Voc107.50Athol-Royalston104.550
   Barnstable101.660
Brockton100.640
Leominster101.630
New Leadership HMCS1031.340
Salem102.040
Wareham102.980
Table 10. Districts* with Four or More Student Exclusions per 1000 Students
2001–02 2002–03
District#Per
1000
students
%
Alt.
Ed.
District#Per
1000
students
%
Alt.
Ed.
S. Boston Harbor Acad Ch625.20 Champion HMCS550.50
Assabet Valley1921.737New Leadership HMCS1031.340
Springfield45818.391Assabet Valley2427.033
S.E. Reg. Voc Tech1815.450Springfield58321.992
North Brookfield911.067Gr. Lawrence RVT1913.532
Murdoch Middle Charter28.80Ralph C. Mahar79.643
Nauset168.9100Nauset179.2100
Boston Evening Acad HMCS17.6Greenfield 188.050
Whittier Voc107.50City On A Hill Charter27.850
Ayer107.10Holyoke567.782
Ralph C. Mahar56.960Northern Berkshire Voc37.00
Southern Worcester Cty VT76.9100Winchendon136.946
Northampton-Smith36.733Ware96.811
Ware96.744Boston Evening Acad HMCS16.60
Old Rochester76.214Mount Greylock56.220
Central Berkshire146.114Lawrence756.092
Gr. Lawrence RVT86.138Southern Berkshire65.8100
Oxford135.992Roxbury Prep Charter15.7100
Sabis International75.8100Avon45.525
Middleborough215.776Stoughton225.377
Dennis-Yarmouth255.656Central Berkshire125.225
Holyoke395.433Frederick Douglass CS15.20
Mount Greylock45.1100Northboro-Southboro65.283
Barnstable315.155North Attleborough245.167
Essex Agr Tech25.150Bristol County Agr24.80
Martha's Vineyard Charter45.075Abby Kelley Foster Reg CS44.775
Worcester1284.997Athol-Royalston104.550
Southern Berkshire54.9100Dennis-Yarmouth194.45
Lawrence594.688North Central Charter Ess14.30
City On A Hill Charter14.50Chicopee324.213
Georgetown74.40Cambridge284.1100
Quincy384.463Monson64.050
Chelsea254.368New Bedford Global Learning14.0100
Malden234.24Worcester1024.0100




Last Updated: June 14, 2004
E-mail this page| Print View| Print Pdf  
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Search · Site Index · Policies · Site Info · Contact ESE