This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 25 January 2012, At: 10:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education forChildren and YouthPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20

At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Traditional Schoolsand a Solution-Focused Public Alternative SchoolChristine Lagana-Riordan a , Jemel P. Aguilar a , Cynthia Franklin a , Calvin L. Streeter a ,Johnny S. Kim b , Stephen J. Tripodi c & Laura M. Hopson da University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USAb University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USAc Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USAd University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA

Available online: 29 Apr 2011

To cite this article: Christine Lagana-Riordan, Jemel P. Aguilar, Cynthia Franklin, Calvin L. Streeter, Johnny S. Kim, StephenJ. Tripodi & Laura M. Hopson (2011): At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Traditional Schools and a Solution-Focused PublicAlternative School, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55:3, 105-114

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10459880903472843

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Preventing School Failure, 55(3), 105–114, 2011Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1045-988X printDOI: 10.1080/10459880903472843

At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Traditional Schools and aSolution-Focused Public Alternative School

CHRISTINE LAGANA-RIORDAN1, JEMEL P. AGUILAR1, CYNTHIA FRANKLIN1,CALVIN L. STREETER1, JOHNNY S. KIM2, STEPHEN J. TRIPODI3, and LAURA M. HOPSON4

1University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA2University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA3Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA4University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA

Recent trends in education have drawn attention to students at risk of school failure and dropout in the United States. Alternativeschools are one method for preventing the severe and long-lasting consequences of underachievement and dropout. Few researchstudies have sought the opinions and perceptions of the at-risk students who attend alternative schools through qualitative researchmethods. This study used qualitative interviews to explore at-risk students’ perspectives about their current alternative school and theirformer traditional schools. Results indicate that traditional schools are lacking the personal relationships with teachers, schoolwidefocus on maturity and responsibility, understanding about social issues, and positive peer relationships that alternative schools oftenprovide. This article offers guidelines to help schools and educators to better support at-risk students.

Keywords: alternative schools, at-risk students, dropout, qualitative, solution focused

Recent trends in education toward accountability and leg-islation such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 havedrawn attention to students at risk of school failure anddropout in the United States. According to No Child LeftBehind, those at-risk include students who are ethnic mi-norities, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds,students with disabilities, and students whose second lan-guage is English. On average, these students score signifi-cantly lower than do their peers on standardized tests, aremore likely to struggle academically, and are more likelydrop out of school (Pruett, Davidson, McMahon, Ward,& Griffith, 2000; National Center for Education Statis-tics, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). In addition to the categories ofat-risk students identified by No Child Left Behind, stu-dents with mental health or behavioral problems and stu-dents with special circumstances—including homelessnessor adolescent pregnancy—are also at significant risk foradverse school outcomes (Price, Pepper, & Brocato, 2006;Prodente, Sander, & Weist, 2002).

Preventing academic failure and school dropout for at-risk students is a significant task for schools because at-riskstudents make up large portions of the student population.

Address correspondence to Christine Lagana-Riordan, Schoolof Social Work, University of Texas at Austin, 1 Uni-versity Sta., D3500, Austin, TX 78712, USA. E-mail:clagana@mail.utexas.edu

In 2005, for example, students from ethnic minority groupsmade up 42% of the total student population. Moreover,the number of the most at-risk ethnic groups in the edu-cation system (i.e., Hispanic/Latino and African Ameri-can students) is on the rise (National Center for Educa-tion Statistics, 2007b). The Annie E. Casey Foundation,Kids Count Database (2009) estimated that (a) an alarm-ing 18% of all children younger than 18 years of age livein poverty and (b) more than 30 million children receivefree and reduced-price lunch at school each day (U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, 2007b). Students with disabilitiescomprise more than 13.5% of the student population (Na-tional Center for Education Statistics, 2007) and it is esti-mated that approximately 20% of school-aged youth havemental health problems that are severe enough to impedetheir learning (Prodente et al., 2002). In addition, every yearabout 750,000 adolescents become pregnant and more than425,000 give birth in the United States (Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, 2007).

When students drop out of school, the consequences aresevere and long lasting. School dropouts are more likely tobe depressed, feel isolated, and use drugs and alcohol. Theyare more likely to join gangs, commit acts of violence, andbecome incarcerated (Aloise-Young & Chavez, 2002; Na-tional Center for Education Statistics, 2002; Rumberger,2004). Over time, dropouts are more likely to be unem-ployed or earn lower salaries than those who graduated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

106 Lagana-Riordan et al.

high school (Martin, Tobin, & Sugai, 2002; National Cen-ter for Education Statistics; Prevatt & Kelly, 2003).

The U.S. education system has created alternativeschools to decrease the number of at-risk students leav-ing school prematurely and serve these students by usingdifferent methods than found in traditional educational set-tings. Most students who attend alternative schools wereunsuccessful in traditional school programs and exhibitedpoor grades, truancy, behavior problems, or experiencedspecial circumstances that impeded their learning. In ad-dition, 12% of the population served in alternative schoolshas some type of disability (Kleiner, Porch, & Farris, 2002).Over the past 15 years, the number of alternative schoolshas risen at astonishing rates in order to keep pace with theneeds of at-risk students. The number of alternative schoolsin the United States rose from 2,606 alternative schools inthe 1993 school year to more than 10,900 in 2001. Alterna-tive schools now serve over 612,000 students and 1.3% ofthe total public school student population (Kleiner et al.).At present, there are many different types of alternativeschools ranging from schools that are mostly disciplinary innature to those with specific academic missions. Alternativeschools that are believed to be most effective at graduatingyouths at risk for dropout are schools that provide caring,flexible, and enriched academic programs (Dupper, 2006).

Although many researchers have explored the publicschool characteristics that help at-risk students completehigh school programs (Aloise-Young & Chavez, 2002;Jordan, Lara, & McPartland, 1996; Rumberger, 1987; Rum-berger, Ghatak, Poulos, Ritter, & Dornbusch, 1990; Rum-berger & Thomas, 2000), the research on alternative schoolsis limited. The available research predominantly focuses ondescribing alternative school student populations and pro-gram characteristics rather than these schools’ effectiveness(Kleiner et al., 2002). The few studies that are available onalternative schools suggest they are successful in meetingthe educational needs of at-risk youth. For example, a re-cent study shows that students who attended an academicalternative school for at-risk youth earned more credits in amore flexible manner and had higher graduation rates thandid their at-risk peers who continued to attend traditionalschools (Kelly, Kim & Franklin, 2008). Additional studiesof other alternative schools produce similar results (Dup-per, 2006; Prevatt & Kelly, 2003). Most of these studieshave used qusiexperimental designs, but few have soughtthe opinions and perceptions of the at-risk students whoattend alternative schools through the use of qualitativeresearch methods.

Similar to the research on alternative schools in general,qualitative research on this topic is scarce. A recent study oneight alternative schools in Washington state using quali-tative data from focus groups found that most students feltsafe and cared for at their alternative schools, had seentheir grades and behavior improve, and felt supported bytheir teachers (Darling & Price, 2004). Another study usedfocus groups to examine comparable groups of pregnant

and parenting teens that attended an alternative schooland traditional schools in Baltimore, Maryland. The studyfound that students who attended the alternative schoolwere more likely to have higher educational aspirations forthe future and better reproductive health outcomes thanwere their peers. The students who attended the alterativeschool attributed their success to various school factorssuch as the positive and nonjudgmental environment andthe multitude of social services available (Amin, Browne,Ahmed, & Sato, 2006).

As the literature indicates, at-risk students often havepositive and negative school experiences that they link totheir efforts to complete school. Patrice de la Ossa’s (2005)qualitative study of alternative school students found thatat-risk students are capable of giving valuable feedbackabout public schools and that this feedback could haveimplications for education policy. Also, de la Ossa foundthat at-risk students have insightful and practical recom-mendations for improving U.S. schools and school-basedresponses to at-risk students. However, research of this kindis lacking and needs to be expanded upon. Specifically, thereis a clear need for qualitative research on at-risk studentsand their perceptions of how and why alternative schoolshave helped them to succeed academically when traditionalschools were unable to do so. This type of research couldhave serious implications for helping at-risk students stayin school, as well as education policy and school reformefforts. This study seeks to fill this gap in the research byexploring alternative school students’ perspectives abouttraditional education and alternative education.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the traditionaland alternative school experiences of at-risk studentscurrently attending a public alternative school that wasdesigned using the practice methods and philosophy ofsolution-focused brief therapy (Kim & Franklin, 2009). Ina recent meta-analysis, solution-focused brief therapy wasfound to be a promising practice in changing the behaviorof at-risk students in a school setting (Franklin, Streeter,Kim, & Tripodi, 2007). The data used in this study weredrawn from a quasi-experimental mixed-methods studythat assessed the effectiveness of the alternative public highschool in preventing school drop out (Kelly et al., 2008).The original study used a pretest–posttest comparisongroup design to compare the credits earned, attendance,and graduation rates of students attending the alternativeschool to a group of students attending a traditional publichigh school in the area. The qualitative component of thestudy involved a case study design and semistructured in-dividual interviews with a subsample of students attendingthe alternative school. The present study used the resultsof these qualitative interviews to gain student perspectivesabout both traditional education and alternative education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Schools 107

to answer the following research questions regardingsolution-focused alternative high school (SFAS):

1. What are the experiences of SFHS students in theirformer traditional schools and in their new solution-focused alternative school?

2. Do at-risk students at SFHS perceive differences be-tween their former traditional school and their newsolution-focused alternative school? If so, what are thesedifferences?

Method

Setting and solution-focused approach

This study took place at a SFAS, a part of the Austin In-dependent School District. The SFAS opened in January1998 as a public alternative school of choice for any highschool student in the district with 10 or more credits. At thetime of data collection, 374 students attended the school, ofwhom 44.1% were Caucasian, 36.6% were Hispanic, 18.2%were African American, 0.8% were Asian American, and0.3% were Native American. The school operates with asolution-focused therapy or solution-building philosophy.SFAS has eight major characteristics that make it solutionfocused:

1. Emphasis on building upon students’ strengths;2. Attention to individual relationships and student

progress;3. Emphasis on student responsibility and choice;4. Commitment to achievement and success;5. Trust in students’ evaluations;6. Focus on students’ potential for success rather than past

difficulties; and7. Reliance on goal-setting activities.8. Celebration of small steps toward success.

Some of the unique features of SFAS include multigradeclassrooms and integrated curriculums that allow new stu-dents to learn the culture and expectations of the schoolfrom veteran students and to build on their academic moti-vations and strengths, teachers who facilitate student moti-vation, and highly individualized instruction from teachers.Students are encouraged to set their own goals and engagein a self-paced curriculum. They complete assigned class-work at their own pace without penalty. For example, somestudents are able to complete an entire course in less thana semester, whereas other students take longer. Teachershelp students to keep track of their goals and discuss theirindividual progress on an ongoing basis.

Sample

The sample for the quasi-experimental mixed-methodsstudy was drawn from the Austin Independent School Dis-trict student database using both purposive and conve-nience sampling to match at-risk students at the alternative

school to comparable students attending a traditional pub-lic high school. All 47 SFAS students who consented to thequasi-experimental study were invited to participate in thequalitative semistructured interview as well. Thirty-threeof the students elected to do so (70%). The subsample ofstudents who participated in this qualitative portion of thestudy ranged in age from 16 to 19 years, with a mean ageof about 17.5 years (SD = 1.06). Additional demographicinformation was available for 32 of the 33 students. Therewere more female participants (57.6%) than male partici-pants (39.4%). The majority of participants were Caucasian(54.5%) or Hispanic (39.4%), with 1 participant who wasAsian American/Pacific Islander. More than half of theparticipants reported that they received free or reduced-price lunch (60.6%).

When asked to describe their living situations, 36% ofthe participants reported living with only their biologicalmother, 12% reported living with their biological motherand a stepfather, and 21% reported living with both bio-logical parents. In addition, 52% of the participants wereemployed while attending school, and 18% reported thatthey received no financial support from family or friends.The students in this sample reported a variety of road-blocks that interfered with their academic success. Theseobstacles included school failure, student or family prob-lems with alcohol or drugs, significant grief or loss, familyproblems, mental health issues, trouble with the police, andpregnancy, as well as learning and health problems, amongothers. All participants and their parents signed consentforms approved by both the university institutional reviewboard, as well as by the Austin Independent School District.

Data collection

Data were gathered through in person interviews withSFAS students using a case study approach for the qual-itative portion of the study (see Creswell, 1998). The casestudy approach was selected because this study focused ona single-bounded case (i.e., SFAS) of interest. As the firstsolution-focused school of its kind, SFAS was selectedas the case under study because of its unique educationalprogram.

Each individual interview lasted between 45–60 min andwas conducted by either a trained doctoral student or atrained school social worker using a semistructured inter-view guide. Interviews took place in a private room on theschool campus or off school grounds. Interviewers tooknotes during the interview and audiotaped the interviewswith student permission, which were later transcribed. Thesemistructured interview instrument consisted of 36 ques-tions that included list items, scaling questions, and open-ended questions. The interviewers used additional probes toexpand upon student answers. The questions and probes ex-amined topics related to the students’ family background,relationships with family and friends, and satisfaction withcurrent and previous schools. In addition, interviewers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

108 Lagana-Riordan et al.

Table 1. Sample Interview Questions and Probes

Topic Questions and probes

Current relationships How well did you get along with your parents before coming to SFAS? How well do you getalong now?

If improved, how is it that your relationship has improved?Is there anyone you can turn to when you are really down and upset?Describe your relationship with peers. How well did you get along with peers before coming

to SFAS? How do you get along with peers now?If improved, how is it that your relationship has improved?Tough situations usually make independent and tough people. What is the toughest

experience that you ever faced in your living situations while growing up?Engagement factors How satisfied with your previous high school were you before attending SFAS? Now that

you have been attending SFAS for a while, how satisfied are you with SFAS?What specifically do you like most about SFAS? What specifically do you like least about

SFAS?Education and career goals Were you ever out of school for an extended period of time?

Every student has a story on how they came to SFAS. Tell me your personal story. How didyou decide to come to SFAS?

How is SFAS similar to your previous school? How is it different?Describe your relationship with SFAS teachers. Describe your relationship with teachers

from your previous school.What non-academic services have you received at SFAS? How do these services compare to

those services you received at your last high school?

Note. SFAS = solution-focused alternative high school.

asked the students about any benefits that they receivedfrom the alternative school, any hardships they had expe-rienced that had thwarted their success at their schools,and any characteristics of the SFAS that enabled them tosucceed and overcome their negative personal experiences.Table 1 provides examples of the interview questions usedin this study. Students were offered $5 as incentive for par-ticipating in the interview.

Data analysis

We used the case study approach for analyzing qualitativedata. Transcripts were analyzed after all of the interviewshad been conducted and transcribed. Using the case-studyapproach, two members of the research team created andorganized the transcript files, read and reread the text re-peatedly, and individually took notes about initial impres-sions in the margins of the text. Each researcher formedinitial codes using categorical aggregation by examining acollection of instances in each transcript and by lookingfor patterns among these instances. The researchers thenconsulted about these initial codes to establish final codes,which were used to individually code each of the tran-scripts. The researchers compared the final codes that theyassigned to each transcript and any discrepancies were re-solved through discussion and consensus. After the codingwas complete, the researchers grouped theoretically simi-lar codes together to develop themes that emerged acrosstranscripts. Measures to ensure trustworthiness and rigorincluded prolonged engagement, peer debriefing, and tri-angulation with quantitative data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Results

The themes that emerged from the qualitative data showedthat there were differences in how SFAS students experi-enced their traditional schools and how they experiencedSFAS. The students highlighted the shortcomings of tra-ditional schools and revealed mostly positive perceptionsabout their experiences at SFAS. The major themes for thisstudy can be found in Table 2.

Experiences at traditional schools

Poor teacher relationships. The students cited poor teacherrelationships as a major contributor to their lack of successin traditional schools. Many students felt that traditionalschool teachers were well meaning but overworked and hadlittle time for individual attention. A student stated, “Theteachers don’t have any time to take you aside because theyhave to grade 500 pieces of paper.” They attributed the lackof individual attention to teacher characteristics such asuncaring attitudes and to educational causes such as largeclass sizes, overcrowded schools, and the focus on standard-ized testing. Schools that fail to balance these challengeswith individual student needs risk alienating the most vul-nerable students. Other students felt labeled in their schoolenvironments or felt judged by their teachers. For exampleone student stated, “They only look at bad things you do.They did not look at good things that you do.” They re-peatedly expressed discontent with the level of respect theyperceived from adults: “In regular school public schools

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Schools 109

Table 2. Major Themes

Experiences at traditional schools Experiences at solution-focused alternative high school

Poor teacher relationships Positive teacher relationshipsLack of safety Improving maturity and responsibilityOverly rigid authority Understanding about social issuesProblems with peer relationships Better peer relationships and supportive atmosphere

one of their golden rules is ‘respect yourself and others,’but most kids don’t get respect. They treat you like sheepthat need to be herded. Everyone has to fit into the box.”Although many students were quick to point out a sin-gle teacher who did seem to care for them, they felt theyhad impersonal relationships with most of their traditionalschool teachers.

Lack of safety. Many of the SFAS students reported thatthey often felt unsafe or uncomfortable in the traditionalschool environment. Rather than viewing school as a safehaven, many students described their schools as hostile.One student revealed, “As soon as I walked into school, Iwould tense up. There was tension in the air. Environmentis a lot—I think it influences a lot.” Ignoring seeminglyharmless or playful behaviors such as bullying and teasingcan create a climate in which students feel unsafe. This cancreate a school environment that encourages peer cliquesand contributes to school violence. In addition, several stu-dents told personal stories of witnessing violence or of theirown victimization on school grounds. One student said:

Some of the football players try to get girls into the bath-room and do things to them. They try to do that with me,I slap them in the face. And I was thinking about pressingcharges but I was like—this thing is not going to help be-cause it’s just my word against his. The officer knows whatgoes on in there. And I told him before I left, “You knowwhat goes on here—You’re as bad as the people who do itand I hate you.

Developing a zero-tolerance policy for bullying and vic-timization can help students feel secure in the school envi-ronment.

Overly rigid authority. Many of the students felt demeanedby school rules and regulations that they felt were overlystrict. One student explained, “Teachers at other [tradi-tional] schools have authority and they have to use it. Theyuse it in a negative way, like a power trip.” Many studentsinterpreted the system of rules and penalties at their tra-ditional schools as punitive. Although many students didstress the importance of having rules, they also believedthat there should be exceptions to the rules. Several stu-dents described situations where they felt that the overlyrigid interpretation of school policies was detrimental forthem. One student said:

The current principal at the school is a machine, workingby school rules. There’s no deviation. . . . My grandmomwas sick with leukemia and I wanted to leave 15 minutesearly to go to the hospital but they wouldn’t let me.

Many schools feel they have to enforce school rules in arigid and inflexible manner to ensure that all students aretreated fairly and comparably. However, not all studentshave the same life circumstances or obstacles to overcome.Enforcing rules in this manner can make at-risk studentsfeel “pushed out” of school, which can lead to poorer grad-uation rates and other academic outcomes. Taking studentcircumstance into account when giving consequences forrule violation can help at-risk students feel supported, evenwhen they have made mistakes.

Problems with peer relationships. The students who wereinterviewed expressed a variety of problems with peer rela-tionships in their traditional schools. They often felt judgedand alienated by student cliques. One student shared, “Atmy old school everybody didn’t like each other, and theyalways talked about each other.” Students repeatedly madecomments about separation among student groups and aschoolwide inability for students to see similarities betweenthemselves and others. These conditions may cause at-riskstudents, who may already be hypervigilant or feel easilythreatened, to act out or withdraw. Other students recog-nized how negative peer influences and poor school cultureor climate (used interchangeably here) were detrimental totheir school experience. “I think it was the school that wewent to that was really the problem. We. . . were so fix-ated on that drugs, and being cool was the biggest factordetermining who we were.” Although the students oftenidentified a few close friends at their traditional schools,they overwhelmingly fixated on negative interactions withpeers. The schools they described lacked a sense of school-wide cohesion and purpose. Implementing schoolwide pos-itive behavior supports or character education could helpstudents to feel more connected to their school and theirpeers.

Experiences at SFAS

Positive teacher relationships. In contrast with their tra-ditional schools, students at SFAS felt that their teachersspent individual time with them. One student explained,“The teachers are available; they’re more helpful. They

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

110 Lagana-Riordan et al.

are more understanding. The environment’s different; youdon’t see a lot of students getting real frustrated and giv-ing up and walking out of class.” Teachers at SFAS hadbeen trained to be adaptable and flexible in their interac-tions with students. They were willing to go the extra mileto find creative ways to help each individual student intheir classes. Many students talked about the genuine car-ing nature of their teachers and the ways that the teachersexpressed their compassion for the students. One studentexplained:

I was incarcerated. All these teachers, they came there forme. They had my work ready. What kind of school woulddo that for you? Most schools would just look at you andsay, “Obviously you haven’t learned your lesson . . .” Buthere they say, “We still see good in this kid. He may havedone bad things but haven’t we all done bad things.

Teachers can help at-risk students to succeed by main-taining a nonjudgmental attitude when students make mis-takes. By focusing on student strengths and helping themobtain the tools they need to succeed academically, no mat-ter their personal circumstances, teachers convey messagesof acceptance and can teach students that they can over-come their obstacles.

Improving maturity and responsibility. Many of the stu-dents interviewed discussed maturity and responsibility inrelation to the students at SFAS. They stated that studentsare expected to act in a mature manner and be responsiblefor their actions, rather than relying on a system of rulesand consequences. One student stated:

At our old schools the responsibilities was on the teacherand they would send out reports if you weren’t doing welland stuff. At SFAS they don’t do that. Either you do itor you don’t. I think I kind of transferred that into myeveryday life by saying, “You know I got stuff I needto take care of and no one else is going to make thathappen.

In fact, several students pointed out that the expectationsfor maturity and responsibility at SFAS helped them to ac-complish goals outside of school. Giving students choicesin the classroom and allowing them to feel in control canincrease their feelings of maturity and responsibility. Thesefeelings of responsibility and control are especially impor-tant for at-risk students who may feel like their home livesare often out of their control.

Understanding about social issues. At the SFAS, manystudents felt that school staff members understood theirunique social situations and helped students learn tocope.

When I was depressed I didn’t want to come to school but Idid. Teachers like Mr. A helped me out a lot. If I needed togo home to be by myself I could. He would say, “Do whatyou can and I’ll let you leave early.” That was a big reason

I didn’t drop out. He helped me out and helped me realizeI didn’t need to drop out just because I’m sad.

Teachers are often fearful of asking students about theirpersonal problems or their home lives or they assume thatstudents will not talk to them about these issues. How-ever, many students at SFAS described their teachers astheir most influential role models and confidants. Teach-ers can help students by creating strong home–school con-nections and by knowing about current home issues thatmay impact academic achievement. Many students statedthat their teachers had a good understanding of and tech-niques for helping them to overcome their obstacles suchas mental health issues, homelessness, teen parenting, anddrug abuse. Teachers can advocate for in-service trainingand continuing education units that focus on assisting at-risk students. Training of this nature can help teachers andadministrators better understand the problems that theirstudents face and the support that they might need. Teach-ers can turn to school social workers and counselors forhelp and advice, when needed. Students also mentioned theextra services they received at SFAS such as career counsel-ing, community service clubs, parenting classes, on-site daycare, and the technology center as aids that helped them toremove barriers to education. When schools do not havethe resources to provide these services, they should set upa system of community referrals through their counselingor social work office.

Better peer relationships and supportive atmosphere. Moststudents described their peer relationships at SFAS asmore positive than the relationships they had in traditionalschools. One student said, “That’s one thing I like about theschool is everyone’s friendly. You see people talking to eachother that in normal, regular high schools, you wouldn’tsee. Like people from different groups. Everyone just as-sociates with everyone.” Overall, they described SFAS stu-dents as friendly, less likely to participate in gossip, moremature, focused on academics, and more accepting of dif-ferences. Adopting a schoolwide strengths-based approachcan improve the overall atmosphere of a school. A focus onstudent strengths not only improves teacher-student rela-tionships, but can also significantly improve peer relation-ships.

Discussion and implications

This study provides a window into at-risk students’ viewson traditional and alternative schools. The findings suggestvarious factors that may have contributed to the students’failure to thrive in traditional schools, as well as the circum-stances that help them to succeed in the alternative school.The following section summarizes the study findings andoffers suggestions to help teachers and schools to supportat-risk students (see Table 3).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Schools 111

Table 3. Suggestions for Working With At-Risk Students

Suggestion Do. . . Avoid. . .

Teacher–studentrelationships

• Give one-to-one, personal attention to students on aregular basis

• Labeling students (e.g., “troublemaker,”“pregnant teen”)

• Offer to speak to students outside of class time • Making judgmental comments about students• Give second chances when a student has broken a rule

or disappointed you• Publically criticizing students in front of others

Home–schoolconnection

• Inquire about students’ out-of-school lives (e.g.,hobbies, personal interests)

• Assuming that students do not want to talkabout their problems with adults

• Show you are willing to talk to students about theirout-of-school issues

• Assuming that students have academic oremotional support at home

• Take an interest when a student seems upset or displaysunusual behavior

• Ignoring changes in student behavior

• Learn about students’ family compositions andcircumstances

• Reach out to student families• Help students find solutions to home-related problems

that impact academicsSchool climate • Seek to improve peer culture and schoolwide cohesion

among students• Perpetuating peer conflict. Do not tolerate

bullying or harassment• Create a school culture of safety and personal

responsibility through character education• Creating a school culture where cliques are

accepted• Let older students teach younger students about

positive school culture and expectationsFlexible rules and

consequences• Institute reasonable rules, expectations, and

consequences• Having unnecessarily rigid school rules and

structure• Seek student input and explanation for rule violations • Enforcing classroom rules too rigidly or

uniformly• Take individual circumstances into account when giving

consequences.• Giving consequences without discussing the

problems with students and hearing their sidesof the story

• Give students a choice of consequencesOffer education and

support services• Provide in-school support services or community

referrals to students with mental health or social issues• Assuming that students already have access to

social service or mental health resources• Sponsor in-service workshops on effectively working

with at-risk students• Assuming that teachers and school staff

members have existing knowledge about at-riskstudents

• Work with school counselors or social workers whenyou need assistance communicating with a difficultstudent

Strengths-basedapproach

• Adopt a schoolwide strengths-based approach orsolution-focused model

• Training only teachers in positive studentinteraction and strength-based approaches. Allemployees (e.g., administrators, cafeteriaworkers, janitors) contribute to school cultureand should be trained equally

• Focus on student strengths • Focusing on student flaws or faults• Tell students that you do not want them to fail and that

you will help them succeed• Sending negative messages to students about

their potential• Allow students to set their own goals

1. Focus on supportive and nonjudgmental teacher–studentrelationships.Teachers clearly played a large role in how the students inthe study perceived their school experiences. This is con-sistent with previous studies that have found that teachersupport is highly correlated with academic motivation

and achievement and is even more influential than classsize or composition (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Tuerk,2005). At-risk students often expressed frustration withthe lack of personal attention and the judgmental com-ments they received from teachers in traditional schools.Students had more positive relationships with the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

112 Lagana-Riordan et al.

teachers in the alternative school and described theirteachers as attentive and caring. They felt the teachersat SFAS were willing to give them second chances whenthey made mistakes and that they refused to let themfail.Educators should understand the important roles thatthey play in these students’ lives and their ability tohelp them to achieve. It is important for educators torefrain from labeling students as troublemakers, focuson student strengths, and take an interest in students’out of school lives. Educators can work with schoolcounselors and social workers when they need assistancewith particular students.

2. Make home–school connections a priority.Students in the study noted the important role that edu-cators had in relation to their home lives. In many cases,teachers seemed to help ameliorate the negative effectsof negative home circumstances by believing in studentsand by pushing them to succeed. Students appreciatedthe interest that their teachers took in their home livesand the fact that teachers seemed to see the whole per-son, including the obstacles that the students faced athome.For many at-risk students, school has the potential to bea more comfortable and safe environment than the stu-dents’ homes. However, at-risk students can feel alien-ated and alone in the school environment, as well. Ed-ucators cannot help at-risk students to overcome theirpersonal problems if they do not identify them. Talk-ing to students when they appear to be upset or exhibitbehavioral changes is a first step. Schools should alsostrive to make contact with parents or guardians, re-fer students for services when needed, and take a teamapproach to problem resolution.

3. Plan and implement strategies to improve school climate.The quality of the school environment and cultureseemed to play a large role in the perceived differencesbetween traditional schools and the solution focusedschool. Students were often concerned with safety attheir traditional schools and described the peer cultureas hostile, drug or trouble focused, and unfriendly. Incontrast, most students appreciated the safety that theyfelt at SFAS. They felt that the peer culture was posi-tive, that they did not have to worry about their “image”or rival cliques, and agreed that the student body wasacademically focused.These findings highlight the importance of a safe andpositive school culture that students find welcomingand non-threatening. This may be particularly impor-tant for at-risk students who have often suffered fromtrauma and may be more acutely aware of safety con-cerns. Schools can help to foster feelings of safety,tolerance, and acceptance by adopting whole schoolcharacter interventions such as positive behavior sup-ports. Schools cannot tolerate or overlook bullying,

teasing, or student victimization, all of which can es-pecially harmful for already vulnerable students. Onceschools have implemented a more positive school cli-mate, they can use older students to mentor incom-ing students and teach them about school expectations.This will ensure that new students are acculturated tothe positive school environment. This study lends ev-idence to the importance of including all school staffmembers, including administrators, counselors, supportstaff, and any other staff members with whom studentsmight come into contact, in character interventions.When at-risk students feel accepted, have a shared fo-cus on academics, and feel safe, they are more likely tosucceed.

4. Be flexible with school rules and offer choices when con-sequences are given.Students in the study often described school rules andadministrators as overly rigid, even in special circum-stances. At SFAS, they had a better understanding ofschool rules because they felt that they were reasonableand could be more loosely interpreted to accommodatethe special circumstances of each student.Although school rules and regulations are importantand play a large part in keeping students safe, thesefindings suggest that at-risk students may need moreunderstanding from school staff in the case of rule vi-olations. These students often have circumstances thatmake them more likely to violate school policies. Ratherthan unilaterally enforcing rules, at-risk students wouldbenefit from a chance to explain their circumstances andwork out agreements with administrators regarding con-sequences. When consequences are indicated and neces-sary, at-risk students would benefit from having choices.This will enable them to feel a sense of control and tochoose a consequence that will fit in with their additionalresponsibilities. For example, a teenage parent might nothave the ability to stay after school for detention becauseof her childcare arrangement, but could serve in-schoolsuspension or spend a week of lunch periods in the prin-cipal’s office.

5. Provide education to staff members and support servicesfor students.Students at SFAS partially attributed their success tostaff members who were knowledgeable about theirmental health and social problems and to the availabil-ity of support services such as counseling, financial re-sources, and childcare. Developing wraparound mentalhealth and social services within the school environmentthrough a school-based health center can be convenientand helpful for students. Educators can advocate for re-sources of this nature. Although not every school canaccess these types of in-school service, all schools canbuild positive relationships with community health andsocial service providers and refer students, when appro-priate.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Schools 113

Schools should make knowledge about mental healthand social problems a priority. Schools social workersand counselors are a good resource for determining themost likely social problems among a particular schoolpopulation and often have skills and knowledge that canbe passed onto educators through in-service trainingsand individual consultation. When an educator developsa positive relationship with a particular at-risk student,the educator can train others to work effectively withthe student. Educators can take the lead in conductingin-service trainings to help other staff members learntechniques for helping at-risk students to succeed. Sim-ilarly, they can work with administrators to help themunderstand at-risk students’ special circumstances andadvocate for flexibility when school rules are violated.

6. Adopt a strengths-based approach.The solution-focused model is a strengths-based ap-proach that puts emphasis on creating a positive schoolenvironment by creating an environment that focuses onaccomplishments rather than obstacles and by ensur-ing that all staff members including cafeteria workersand janitors have training in the strengths-based ap-proach. The solution-focused model allows students toset their own goals and provides supportive adults tohelp them to work toward these goals. It helps studentsfeel responsible for their own education. The studentsattributed specific aspects of the model such as atten-tion to individual relationships between staff and stu-dents, emphasis on student responsibility, one-on-oneattention from educators, flexible school structure, andpositive school atmosphere directly to their success atSFAS. The solution-focused model enabled students toachieve academically despite a multitude of obstacles.The solution-focused school model should be further ex-plored as a model for alternative schools and elementsof the model should be incorporated into traditionalschools to support the needs of at-risk students. Profes-sionals trained in the solution-focused model can helpschools to adopt this approach.

Limitations

The major limitation to this study is that it was limited toa single, solution-focused school program in a single ge-ographic area. The traditional schools that the studentsreflected upon in this study were all from a single schooldistrict and the problems they discussed may have been lim-ited to issues within this district. However, because manyof the problems that the students described are also ap-parent in the school social work and education literature,it is likely that at-risk students do experience these prob-lems throughout the United States. Similarly, the benefitsof the solution-focused school may be specific to how thisparticular program has been conceived and administered.However, with few solution-focused programs in existence,

it seems that this school can serve as a model for educatingat-risk students.

Conclusion

Overall, the students in this study felt that they had bene-fitted from the SFAS and had achieved at a level they couldnot have accomplished in their traditional schools. Theywere able to provide valuable insights into the problemsthat traditional schools often have in serving at-risk youthand into possible solutions offered by a solution-focused al-ternative school. Given the current emphasis on improvingthe academic achievement of at-risk students, these insightsare especially valuable.

Author notes

Christine Lagana-Riordan is a doctoral candidate in social work at theUniversity of Texas at Austin. Her research interests include school socialwork, education policy, and developmental disabilities.

Jemel P. Aguilar is an assistant professor at the University of Texas atAustin. His current research interests are health-service systems and risk,gay men’s drug use, and risk and protective factors among low-incomepopulations.

Cynthia Franklin is the Stiernberg/Spencer Family Professor in MentalHealth at the University of Texas at Austin where she is also on the fac-ulty of the Dropout Institute for the Center for Preventing EducationalRisk in the Department of Special Education. Her current interests in-clude efficacy research on the taking charge intervention for improvingthe attendance, academic achievement and school completion of school-age mothers and the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy fordropout prevention.

Calvin L. Streeter is the Meadows Foundation Centennial Professor inthe Quality of Life in the Rural Environment in the School of Social Workat the University of Texas at Austin. His current research interests includeschool-based services, dropout prevention, and employment supports forpeople with disabilities.

Johnny S. Kim is an assistant professor at the University of Kansas Schoolof Social Welfare. His research areas focus on evaluating school-basedinterventions, solution-focused brief therapy, and quantitative researchmethods.

Stephen J. Tripodi is an assistant professor at Florida State University.His current research interests are corrections, criminal recidivism, womenin the criminal justice system, and school social work.

Laura M. Hopson is an assistant professor at the University at AlbanySchool of Social Welfare. Her current research examines risk and protec-tive factors during the transition from middle to high school.

References

Aloise-Young, P. A., & Chavez, E. L. (2002). Not all school dropoutsare the same: Ethnic differences in the relations between reasonfor leaving school and adolescent substance use. Psychology in theSchools, 39, 539–547.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

114 Lagana-Riordan et al.

Amin, R., Browne, D. C., Ahmed, J., & Sato, T. (2006). A study of analternative school for pregnant and/or parenting teens: Quantitativeand qualitative evidence. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal,23, 172–195.

Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Database. (2009).Poverty 2007: Children under 18. Retrieved from http://www.kidscount.org/datacenter/compare results.jsp?i=190

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Adolescent reproduc-tive health: Teen pregnancy. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/AdolescentHealthReport/indix.htm

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosingamong five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Darling, B., & Price, T. (2004). Students’ perspectives on alternative, com-munity, and correctional education schools and services. Journal ofCorrectional Education, 55(1), 69–76.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school re-form. Teachers College Record, 106, 1047–1085.

de la Ossa, P. (2005). “Hear my voice”: Alternative high school stu-dents’ perspectives and implications for school change. AmericanSecondary Education, 34(1), 24–39.

Dupper, D. R. (2006). Guides for designing and establishing alternativeschool programs for dropout prevention. In C. Franklin, M. B.Harris, & P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), The school services sourcebook: Aguide for school-based professionals (pp. 397–404). New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Franklin, C., Streeter, C. L., Kim, J. S., & Tripodi, S. J. (2007). The effec-tiveness of a solution-focused, public alterative school for dropoutprevention and retrieval. Children & Schools, 29, 133–144.

Jordan, W. L., Lara, J., & McPartland, J. M. (1996). Exploring the causesof early dropout among race-ethnic and gender groups. Youth &Society, 28, 62–94.

Kelly, M., Kim, J. S., & Franklin, C. (2008). Solution focused brief therapyin schools: The 360 degree view of practice and research. New York,NY: Oxford University Press.

Kim, J. S., & Franklin, C. (2009). Solution-focused brief therapy inschools: A review of the outcome literature. Children and YouthServices Review, 31, 461–470.

Kleiner, B., Porch, R., & Farris, E. (2002). Public alternativeschools and programs for students at risk of education fail-ure: 2000–01 (NCES 2002–004). Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002004.pdf

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Martin, E. J., Tobin, T. J., & Sugai, G. M. (2002). Current informationon dropout prevention: Ideas from practitioners and the literature.Preventing School Failure, 47, 10–18.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Characteristics of the100 largest elementary and secondary school districts in the United

States: 2000–01 (NCES 2002–351). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Digest of ed-ucation statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006–030). Retrieved fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007a). 2007 reading assess-ment (NAEP Data Explorer). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/viewresults.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007b). The condition ofeducation 2007 (NCES Report No. 2007–064). Retrieved fromhttp://www.nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007c). Percentage of highschool dropouts (status dropouts) among persons 16 through 24 yearsold, by income level, and percentage distribution of dropouts, by la-bor force status and educational attainment: 1970 through 2005.Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06 105.asp

Prevatt, F., & Kelly, F. D. (2003). Dropping out of school: A reviewof intervention programs. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 377–395.

Price, D. L., Pepper, K., & Brocato, K. (2006). The importance of makingthe well-being of children in poverty a priority. Early ChildhoodEducation, 34, 21–28.

Prodente, C. A., Sander, M. A., & Weist, M. D. (2002). Further-ing support for expanded school mental health programs. Chil-dren’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 5, 173–188.

Pruett, M. K., Davidson, L., McMahon, T. J., Ward, N. L., & Griffith,E. E. H. (2000). Comprehensive services for at-risk urban youth:Applying lessons from the community mental health movement.Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 3, 63–83.

Rumberger, R. W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of is-sues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57, 101–121.

Rumberger, R. W. (2004). Why students drop out of school. In G. Orfield(Ed.), Drop outs in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis(pp. 131–155). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Rumberger, R. W., Ghatak, R., Poulos, G., Ritter, P. L., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1990). Family influences on dropout behavior in one Californiahigh school. Sociology of Education, 63, 283–299.

Rumberger, R. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2000). The distribution of dropoutand turnover rates among urban and suburban high schools. Soci-ology of Education, 73, 39–67.

Tuerk, P. W. (2005). Research in the high-stakes era: Achievement, re-sources, and No Child Left Behind. Psychological Science, 16,419–425.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2007). National school lunchprogram. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

13 2

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

12