This article was downloaded by: [The University Of Melbourne Libraries]

On: 10 October 2014, At: 16:34

Publisher: Routledge
Informa 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 for

Children and Youth
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20

At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Traditional Schools

and a Solution-Focused Public Alternative School
a a a a
Christine Lagana-Riordan , Jemel P. Aguilar , Cynthia Franklin , Calvin L. Streeter ,
b c d
Johnny S. Kim , Stephen J. Tripodi & Laura M. Hopson
a
University of Texas at Austin , Austin, TX, USA
b
University of Kansas , Lawrence, KS, USA
c
Florida State University , Tallahassee, FL, USA
d
University at Albany, State University of New York , Albany, NY, USA
Published online: 29 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Christine Lagana-Riordan , Jemel P. Aguilar , Cynthia Franklin , Calvin L. Streeter , Johnny S. Kim ,
Stephen J. Tripodi & Laura M. Hopson (2011) At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Traditional Schools and a Solution-Focused
Public Alternative School, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55:3, 105-114, DOI:
10.1080/10459880903472843

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Preventing School Failure, 55(3), 105–114, 2011
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1045-988X print

DOI: 10.1080/10459880903472843

At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Traditional Schools and a

Solution-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
1
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
2
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
3
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
4
University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014

Recent trends in education have drawn attention to students at risk of school failure and dropout in the United States. Alternative
schools are one method for preventing the severe and long-lasting consequences of underachievement and dropout. Few research
studies have sought the opinions and perceptions of the at-risk students who attend alternative schools through qualitative research
methods. This study used qualitative interviews to explore at-risk students’ perspectives about their current alternative school and their
former traditional schools. Results indicate that traditional schools are lacking the personal relationships with teachers, schoolwide
focus on maturity and responsibility, understanding about social issues, and positive peer relationships that alternative schools often
provide. 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 have
drawn attention to students at risk of school failure and
dropout in the United States. According to No Child Left
Behind, 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, are
more likely to struggle academically, and are more likely
drop out of school (Pruett, Davidson, McMahon, Ward,
& Griffith, 2000; National Center for Education Statis-
tics, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). In addition to the categories of
at-risk students identified by No Child Left Behind, stu-
dents with mental health or behavioral problems and stu-
dents with special circumstances—including homelessness
or adolescent pregnancy—are also at significant risk for
adverse 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-risk
students make up large portions of the student population.
Address correspondence to Christine Lagana-Riordan, School
of 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 groups
made 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 live
in poverty and (b) more than 30 million children receive
free and reduced-price lunch at school each day (U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, 2007b). Students with disabilities
comprise 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 have
mental health problems that are severe enough to impede
their learning (Prodente et al., 2002). In addition, every year
about 750,000 adolescents become pregnant and more than
425,000 give birth in the United States (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2007).
When students drop out of school, the consequences are
severe and long lasting. School dropouts are more likely to
be depressed, feel isolated, and use drugs and alcohol. They
are more likely to join gangs, commit acts of violence, and
become 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
 106
high school (Martin, Tobin, & Sugai, 2002; National Cen-
ter for Education Statistics; Prevatt & Kelly, 2003).
The U.S. education system has created alternative
schools to decrease the number of at-risk students leav-
ing school prematurely and serve these students by using
different methods than found in traditional educational set-
tings. Most students who attend alternative schools were
unsuccessful in traditional school programs and exhibited
poor grades, truancy, behavior problems, or experienced
special circumstances that impeded their learning. In ad-
dition, 12% of the population served in alternative schools
has some type of disability (Kleiner, Porch, & Farris, 2002).
Over the past 15 years, the number of alternative schools
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014
has risen at astonishing rates in order to keep pace with the
needs of at-risk students. The number of alternative schools
in the United States rose from 2,606 alternative schools in
the 1993 school year to more than 10,900 in 2001. Alterna-
tive schools now serve over 612,000 students and 1.3% of
the total public school student population (Kleiner et al.).
At present, there are many different types of alternative
schools ranging from schools that are mostly disciplinary in
nature to those with specific academic missions. Alternative
schools that are believed to be most effective at graduating
youths at risk for dropout are schools that provide caring,
flexible, and enriched academic programs (Dupper, 2006).
Although many researchers have explored the public
school characteristics that help at-risk students complete
high 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 schools
is limited. The available research predominantly focuses on
describing alternative school student populations and pro-
gram characteristics rather than these schools’ effectiveness
(Kleiner et al., 2002). The few studies that are available on
alternative schools suggest they are successful in meeting
the educational needs of at-risk youth. For example, a re-
cent study shows that students who attended an academic
alternative school for at-risk youth earned more credits in a
more flexible manner and had higher graduation rates than
did their at-risk peers who continued to attend traditional
schools (Kelly, Kim & Franklin, 2008). Additional studies
of other alternative schools produce similar results (Dup-
per, 2006; Prevatt & Kelly, 2003). Most of these studies
have used qusiexperimental designs, but few have sought
the opinions and perceptions of the at-risk students who
attend alternative schools through the use of qualitative
research methods.
Similar to the research on alternative schools in general,
qualitative research on this topic is scarce. A recent study on
eight alternative schools in Washington state using quali-
tative data from focus groups found that most students felt
safe and cared for at their alternative schools, had seen
their grades and behavior improve, and felt supported by
their teachers (Darling & Price, 2004). Another study used
focus groups to examine comparable groups of pregnant
Lagana-Riordan et al.
and parenting teens that attended an alternative school
and traditional schools in Baltimore, Maryland. The study
found that students who attended the alternative school
were more likely to have higher educational aspirations for
the future and better reproductive health outcomes than
were their peers. The students who attended the alterative
school attributed their success to various school factors
such as the positive and nonjudgmental environment and
the multitude of social services available (Amin, Browne,
Ahmed, & Sato, 2006).
As the literature indicates, at-risk students often have
positive and negative school experiences that they link to
their efforts to complete school. Patrice de la Ossa’s (2005)
qualitative study of alternative school students found that
at-risk students are capable of giving valuable feedback
about public schools and that this feedback could have
implications for education policy. Also, de la Ossa found
that at-risk students have insightful and practical recom-
mendations for improving U.S. schools and school-based
responses to at-risk students. However, research of this kind
is lacking and needs to be expanded upon. Specifically, there
is a clear need for qualitative research on at-risk students
and their perceptions of how and why alternative schools
have helped them to succeed academically when traditional
schools were unable to do so. This type of research could
have serious implications for helping at-risk students stay
in school, as well as education policy and school reform
efforts. This study seeks to fill this gap in the research by
exploring alternative school students’ perspectives about
traditional education and alternative education.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the traditional
and alternative school experiences of at-risk students
currently attending a public alternative school that was
designed using the practice methods and philosophy of
solution-focused brief therapy (Kim & Franklin, 2009). In
a recent meta-analysis, solution-focused brief therapy was
found to be a promising practice in changing the behavior
of at-risk students in a school setting (Franklin, Streeter,
Kim, & Tripodi, 2007). The data used in this study were
drawn from a quasi-experimental mixed-methods study
that assessed the effectiveness of the alternative public high
school in preventing school drop out (Kelly et al., 2008).
The original study used a pretest–posttest comparison
group design to compare the credits earned, attendance,
and graduation rates of students attending the alternative
school to a group of students attending a traditional public
high school in the area. The qualitative component of the
study involved a case study design and semistructured in-
dividual interviews with a subsample of students attending
the alternative school. The present study used the results
of these qualitative interviews to gain student perspectives
about both traditional education and alternative education
 At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Schools
to answer the following research questions regarding
solution-focused alternative high school (SFAS):
1. What are the experiences of SFHS students in their
former 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 new
solution-focused alternative school? If so, what are these
differences?
Method
Setting and solution-focused approach
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014
This study took place at a SFAS, a part of the Austin In-
dependent School District. The SFAS opened in January
1998 as a public alternative school of choice for any high
school student in the district with 10 or more credits. At the
time of data collection, 374 students attended the school, of
whom 44.1% were Caucasian, 36.6% were Hispanic, 18.2%
were African American, 0.8% were Asian American, and
0.3% were Native American. The school operates with a
solution-focused therapy or solution-building philosophy.
SFAS has eight major characteristics that make it solution
focused:
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; and
7. Reliance on goal-setting activities.
8. Celebration of small steps toward success.
Some of the unique features of SFAS include multigrade
classrooms and integrated curriculums that allow new stu-
dents to learn the culture and expectations of the school
from 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 engage
in a self-paced curriculum. They complete assigned class-
work at their own pace without penalty. For example, some
students are able to complete an entire course in less than
a semester, whereas other students take longer. Teachers
help students to keep track of their goals and discuss their
individual progress on an ongoing basis.
Sample
The sample for the quasi-experimental mixed-methods
study 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
107
school to comparable students attending a traditional pub-
lic high school. All 47 SFAS students who consented to the
quasi-experimental study were invited to participate in the
qualitative semistructured interview as well. Thirty-three
of the students elected to do so (70%). The subsample of
students who participated in this qualitative portion of the
study ranged in age from 16 to 19 years, with a mean age
of about 17.5 years (SD = 1.06). Additional demographic
information was available for 32 of the 33 students. There
were 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 was
Asian American/Pacific Islander. More than half of the
participants reported that they received free or reduced-
price lunch (60.6%).
When asked to describe their living situations, 36% of
the participants reported living with only their biological
mother, 12% reported living with their biological mother
and a stepfather, and 21% reported living with both bio-
logical parents. In addition, 52% of the participants were
employed while attending school, and 18% reported that
they 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. These
obstacles included school failure, student or family prob-
lems with alcohol or drugs, significant grief or loss, family
problems, mental health issues, trouble with the police, and
pregnancy, as well as learning and health problems, among
others. All participants and their parents signed consent
forms approved by both the university institutional review
board, as well as by the Austin Independent School District.
Data collection
Data were gathered through in person interviews with
SFAS students using a case study approach for the qual-
itative portion of the study (see Creswell, 1998). The case
study approach was selected because this study focused on
a single-bounded case (i.e., SFAS) of interest. As the first
solution-focused school of its kind, SFAS was selected
as the case under study because of its unique educational
program.
Each individual interview lasted between 45–60 min and
was conducted by either a trained doctoral student or a
trained school social worker using a semistructured inter-
view guide. Interviews took place in a private room on the
school campus or off school grounds. Interviewers took
notes during the interview and audiotaped the interviews
with student permission, which were later transcribed. The
semistructured interview instrument consisted of 36 ques-
tions that included list items, scaling questions, and open-
ended questions. The interviewers used additional probes to
expand upon student answers. The questions and probes ex-
amined topics related to the students’ family background,
relationships with family and friends, and satisfaction with
current and previous schools. In addition, interviewers
 108 Lagana-Riordan et al.
Table 1. Sample Interview Questions and Probes
Topic Questions and probes

Current relationships
Engagement factors
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014
How well did you get along with your parents before coming to SFAS? How well do you get
along 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?
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?

Education and career goals
Note. SFAS = solution-focused alternative high school.
What specifically do you like most about SFAS? What specifically do you like least about
SFAS?
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 did
you 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?

asked the students about any benefits that they received
from 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 to
succeed and overcome their negative personal experiences.
Table 1 provides examples of the interview questions used
in this study. Students were offered $5 as incentive for par-
ticipating in the interview.
Data analysis
We used the case study approach for analyzing qualitative
data. Transcripts were analyzed after all of the interviews
had been conducted and transcribed. Using the case-study
approach, two members of the research team created and
organized 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 formed
initial codes using categorical aggregation by examining a
collection of instances in each transcript and by looking
for patterns among these instances. The researchers then
consulted 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 they
assigned to each transcript and any discrepancies were re-
solved through discussion and consensus. After the coding
was complete, the researchers grouped theoretically simi-
lar codes together to develop themes that emerged across
transcripts. Measures to ensure trustworthiness and rigor
included prolonged engagement, peer debriefing, and tri-
angulation with quantitative data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Results
The themes that emerged from the qualitative data showed
that there were differences in how SFAS students experi-
enced their traditional schools and how they experienced
SFAS. The students highlighted the shortcomings of tra-
ditional schools and revealed mostly positive perceptions
about their experiences at SFAS. The major themes for this
study can be found in Table 2.
Experiences at traditional schools
Poor teacher relationships. The students cited poor teacher
relationships as a major contributor to their lack of success
in traditional schools. Many students felt that traditional
school teachers were well meaning but overworked and had
little time for individual attention. A student stated, “The
teachers don’t have any time to take you aside because they
have to grade 500 pieces of paper.” They attributed the lack
of individual attention to teacher characteristics such as
uncaring attitudes and to educational causes such as large
class sizes, overcrowded schools, and the focus on standard-
ized testing. Schools that fail to balance these challenges
with individual student needs risk alienating the most vul-
nerable students. Other students felt labeled in their school
environments or felt judged by their teachers. For example
one 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 they
perceived from adults: “In regular school public schools
 At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Schools
Table 2. Major Themes
Experiences at traditional schools Experiences at solution-focused alternative high school
Poor teacher relationships Positive teacher relationships
Lack of safety Improving maturity and responsibility
Overly rigid authority Understanding about social issues
Problems 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 sheep
that need to be herded. Everyone has to fit into the box.”
Although many students were quick to point out a sin-
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014
gle teacher who did seem to care for them, they felt they
had impersonal relationships with most of their traditional
school teachers.
Lack of safety. Many of the SFAS students reported that
they often felt unsafe or uncomfortable in the traditional
school environment. Rather than viewing school as a safe
haven, many students described their schools as hostile.
One student revealed, “As soon as I walked into school, I
would tense up. There was tension in the air. Environment
is a lot—I think it influences a lot.” Ignoring seemingly
harmless or playful behaviors such as bullying and teasing
can create a climate in which students feel unsafe. This can
create a school environment that encourages peer cliques
and contributes to school violence. In addition, several stu-
dents told personal stories of witnessing violence or of their
own 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 pressing
charges but I was like—this thing is not going to help be-
cause it’s just my word against his. The officer knows what
goes on in there. And I told him before I left, “You know
what goes on here—You’re as bad as the people who do it
and 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 demeaned
by school rules and regulations that they felt were overly
strict. One student explained, “Teachers at other [tradi-
tional] schools have authority and they have to use it. They
use it in a negative way, like a power trip.” Many students
interpreted the system of rules and penalties at their tra-
ditional schools as punitive. Although many students did
stress the importance of having rules, they also believed
that there should be exceptions to the rules. Several stu-
dents described situations where they felt that the overly
rigid interpretation of school policies was detrimental for
them. One student said:
109
The current principal at the school is a machine, working
by school rules. There’s no deviation. . . . My grandmom
was sick with leukemia and I wanted to leave 15 minutes
early to go to the hospital but they wouldn’t let me.
Many schools feel they have to enforce school rules in a
rigid and inflexible manner to ensure that all students are
treated fairly and comparably. However, not all students
have the same life circumstances or obstacles to overcome.
Enforcing rules in this manner can make at-risk students
feel “pushed out” of school, which can lead to poorer grad-
uation rates and other academic outcomes. Taking student
circumstance into account when giving consequences for
rule violation can help at-risk students feel supported, even
when they have made mistakes.
Problems with peer relationships. The students who were
interviewed expressed a variety of problems with peer rela-
tionships in their traditional schools. They often felt judged
and alienated by student cliques. One student shared, “At
my old school everybody didn’t like each other, and they
always talked about each other.” Students repeatedly made
comments about separation among student groups and a
schoolwide inability for students to see similarities between
themselves and others. These conditions may cause at-risk
students, who may already be hypervigilant or feel easily
threatened, to act out or withdraw. Other students recog-
nized how negative peer influences and poor school culture
or climate (used interchangeably here) were detrimental to
their school experience. “I think it was the school that we
went to that was really the problem. We. . . were so fix-
ated on that drugs, and being cool was the biggest factor
determining who we were.” Although the students often
identified a few close friends at their traditional schools,
they overwhelmingly fixated on negative interactions with
peers. The schools they described lacked a sense of school-
wide cohesion and purpose. Implementing schoolwide pos-
itive behavior supports or character education could help
students to feel more connected to their school and their
peers.
Experiences at SFAS
Positive teacher relationships. In contrast with their tra-
ditional schools, students at SFAS felt that their teachers
spent individual time with them. One student explained,
“The teachers are available; they’re more helpful. They
 110
are more understanding. The environment’s different; you
don’t see a lot of students getting real frustrated and giv-
ing up and walking out of class.” Teachers at SFAS had
been trained to be adaptable and flexible in their interac-
tions with students. They were willing to go the extra mile
to find creative ways to help each individual student in
their classes. Many students talked about the genuine car-
ing nature of their teachers and the ways that the teachers
expressed their compassion for the students. One student
explained:
I was incarcerated. All these teachers, they came there for
me. They had my work ready. What kind of school would
do that for you? Most schools would just look at you and
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014
say, “Obviously you haven’t learned your lesson . . .” But
here they say, “We still see good in this kid. He may have
done 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 them
obtain the tools they need to succeed academically, no mat-
ter their personal circumstances, teachers convey messages
of 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 in
relation to the students at SFAS. They stated that students
are expected to act in a mature manner and be responsible
for their actions, rather than relying on a system of rules
and consequences. One student stated:
At our old schools the responsibilities was on the teacher
and they would send out reports if you weren’t doing well
and stuff. At SFAS they don’t do that. Either you do it
or you don’t. I think I kind of transferred that into my
everyday life by saying, “You know I got stuff I need
to take care of and no one else is going to make that
happen.
In fact, several students pointed out that the expectations
for maturity and responsibility at SFAS helped them to ac-
complish goals outside of school. Giving students choices
in the classroom and allowing them to feel in control can
increase their feelings of maturity and responsibility. These
feelings of responsibility and control are especially impor-
tant for at-risk students who may feel like their home lives
are often out of their control.
Understanding about social issues. At the SFAS, many
students felt that school staff members understood their
unique social situations and helped students learn to
cope.
When I was depressed I didn’t want to come to school but I
did. Teachers like Mr. A helped me out a lot. If I needed to
go home to be by myself I could. He would say, “Do what
you can and I’ll let you leave early.” That was a big reason
Lagana-Riordan et al.
I didn’t drop out. He helped me out and helped me realize
I didn’t need to drop out just because I’m sad.
Teachers are often fearful of asking students about their
personal problems or their home lives or they assume that
students will not talk to them about these issues. How-
ever, many students at SFAS described their teachers as
their 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 that
may impact academic achievement. Many students stated
that their teachers had a good understanding of and tech-
niques for helping them to overcome their obstacles such
as mental health issues, homelessness, teen parenting, and
drug abuse. Teachers can advocate for in-service training
and continuing education units that focus on assisting at-
risk students. Training of this nature can help teachers and
administrators better understand the problems that their
students face and the support that they might need. Teach-
ers can turn to school social workers and counselors for
help and advice, when needed. Students also mentioned the
extra services they received at SFAS such as career counsel-
ing, community service clubs, parenting classes, on-site day
care, and the technology center as aids that helped them to
remove barriers to education. When schools do not have
the resources to provide these services, they should set up
a system of community referrals through their counseling
or social work office.
Better peer relationships and supportive atmosphere. Most
students described their peer relationships at SFAS as
more positive than the relationships they had in traditional
schools. One student said, “That’s one thing I like about the
school is everyone’s friendly. You see people talking to each
other that in normal, regular high schools, you wouldn’t
see. 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, more
mature, focused on academics, and more accepting of dif-
ferences. Adopting a schoolwide strengths-based approach
can improve the overall atmosphere of a school. A focus on
student 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’ views
on traditional and alternative schools. The findings suggest
various 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 and
offers suggestions to help teachers and schools to support
at-risk students (see Table 3).
 At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Schools 111
Table 3. Suggestions for Working With At-Risk Students
Suggestion Do. . . Avoid. . .

Teacher–student • Give one-to-one, personal attention to students on a • Labeling students (e.g., “troublemaker,”
relationships regular basis “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 • Publically criticizing students in front of others
or disappointed you
Home–school • Inquire about students’ out-of-school lives (e.g., • Assuming that students do not want to talk
connection hobbies, personal interests) about their problems with adults
• Show you are willing to talk to students about their • Assuming that students have academic or
out-of-school issues emotional support at home
• Take an interest when a student seems upset or displays • Ignoring changes in student behavior
unusual behavior
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014

• Learn about students’ family compositions and

circumstances
• Reach out to student families
• Help students find solutions to home-related problems
that impact academics
School climate • Seek to improve peer culture and schoolwide cohesion
among students
• Create a school culture of safety and personal
responsibility through character education
• Let older students teach younger students about
positive school culture and expectations
Flexible rules and • Institute reasonable rules, expectations, and
consequences consequences
• Seek student input and explanation for rule violations
• Take individual circumstances into account when giving • Giving consequences without discussing the
consequences.
• Give students a choice of consequences
Offer education and • Provide in-school support services or community
support services referrals to students with mental health or social issues
• Sponsor in-service workshops on effectively working
with at-risk students
• Work with school counselors or social workers when
you need assistance communicating with a difficult
student
Strengths-based • Adopt a schoolwide strengths-based approach or
approach solution-focused model
• Focus on student strengths
• Tell students that you do not want them to fail and that • Sending negative messages to students about
you will help them succeed
• Allow students to set their own goals
• Perpetuating peer conflict. Do not tolerate
bullying or harassment
• Creating a school culture where cliques are
accepted
• Having unnecessarily rigid school rules and
structure
• Enforcing classroom rules too rigidly or
uniformly
problems with students and hearing their sides
of the story
• Assuming that students already have access to
social service or mental health resources
• Assuming that teachers and school staff
members have existing knowledge about at-risk
students
• Training only teachers in positive student
interaction and strength-based approaches. All
employees (e.g., administrators, cafeteria
workers, janitors) contribute to school culture
and should be trained equally
• Focusing on student flaws or faults
their potential

1. Focus on supportive and nonjudgmental teacher–student
relationships.
Teachers clearly played a large role in how the students in
the study perceived their school experiences. This is con-
sistent with previous studies that have found that teacher
support is highly correlated with academic motivation
and achievement and is even more influential than class
size or composition (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Tuerk,
2005). At-risk students often expressed frustration with
the lack of personal attention and the judgmental com-
ments they received from teachers in traditional schools.
Students had more positive relationships with the
 112
teachers in the alternative school and described their
teachers as attentive and caring. They felt the teachers
at SFAS were willing to give them second chances when
they made mistakes and that they refused to let them
fail.
Educators should understand the important roles that
they play in these students’ lives and their ability to
help them to achieve. It is important for educators to
refrain from labeling students as troublemakers, focus
on student strengths, and take an interest in students’
out of school lives. Educators can work with school
counselors and social workers when they need assistance
with particular students.
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014
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 effects
of negative home circumstances by believing in students
and by pushing them to succeed. Students appreciated
the interest that their teachers took in their home lives
and the fact that teachers seemed to see the whole per-
son, including the obstacles that the students faced at
home.
For many at-risk students, school has the potential to be
a 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 their
personal problems if they do not identify them. Talk-
ing to students when they appear to be upset or exhibit
behavioral changes is a first step. Schools should also
strive to make contact with parents or guardians, re-
fer students for services when needed, and take a team
approach to problem resolution.
3. Plan and implement strategies to improve school climate.
The quality of the school environment and culture
seemed to play a large role in the perceived differences
between traditional schools and the solution focused
school. Students were often concerned with safety at
their traditional schools and described the peer culture
as hostile, drug or trouble focused, and unfriendly. In
contrast, most students appreciated the safety that they
felt 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 was
academically focused.
These findings highlight the importance of a safe and
positive school culture that students find welcoming
and non-threatening. This may be particularly impor-
tant for at-risk students who have often suffered from
trauma and may be more acutely aware of safety con-
cerns. Schools can help to foster feelings of safety,
tolerance, and acceptance by adopting whole school
character interventions such as positive behavior sup-
ports. Schools cannot tolerate or overlook bullying,
Lagana-Riordan et al.
teasing, or student victimization, all of which can es-
pecially harmful for already vulnerable students. Once
schools 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 to
the positive school environment. This study lends ev-
idence to the importance of including all school staff
members, including administrators, counselors, support
staff, and any other staff members with whom students
might 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 to
succeed.
4. Be flexible with school rules and offer choices when con-
sequences are given.
Students in the study often described school rules and
administrators as overly rigid, even in special circum-
stances. At SFAS, they had a better understanding of
school rules because they felt that they were reasonable
and could be more loosely interpreted to accommodate
the special circumstances of each student.
Although school rules and regulations are important
and play a large part in keeping students safe, these
findings suggest that at-risk students may need more
understanding from school staff in the case of rule vi-
olations. These students often have circumstances that
make them more likely to violate school policies. Rather
than unilaterally enforcing rules, at-risk students would
benefit from a chance to explain their circumstances and
work 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 to
choose a consequence that will fit in with their additional
responsibilities. For example, a teenage parent might not
have the ability to stay after school for detention because
of her childcare arrangement, but could serve in-school
suspension or spend a week of lunch periods in the prin-
cipal’s office.
5. Provide education to staff members and support services
for students.
Students at SFAS partially attributed their success to
staff members who were knowledgeable about their
mental health and social problems and to the availabil-
ity of support services such as counseling, financial re-
sources, and childcare. Developing wraparound mental
health and social services within the school environment
through a school-based health center can be convenient
and helpful for students. Educators can advocate for re-
sources of this nature. Although not every school can
access these types of in-school service, all schools can
build positive relationships with community health and
social service providers and refer students, when appro-
priate.
 At-Risk Students’ Perceptions of Schools
Schools should make knowledge about mental health
and social problems a priority. Schools social workers
and counselors are a good resource for determining the
most likely social problems among a particular school
population and often have skills and knowledge that can
be passed onto educators through in-service trainings
and individual consultation. When an educator develops
a positive relationship with a particular at-risk student,
the educator can train others to work effectively with
the student. Educators can take the lead in conducting
in-service trainings to help other staff members learn
techniques for helping at-risk students to succeed. Sim-
ilarly, they can work with administrators to help them
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014
understand at-risk students’ special circumstances and
advocate 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 school
environment by creating an environment that focuses on
accomplishments rather than obstacles and by ensur-
ing that all staff members including cafeteria workers
and janitors have training in the strengths-based ap-
proach. The solution-focused model allows students to
set their own goals and provides supportive adults to
help them to work toward these goals. It helps students
feel responsible for their own education. The students
attributed specific aspects of the model such as atten-
tion to individual relationships between staff and stu-
dents, emphasis on student responsibility, one-on-one
attention from educators, flexible school structure, and
positive school atmosphere directly to their success at
SFAS. The solution-focused model enabled students to
achieve academically despite a multitude of obstacles.
The solution-focused school model should be further ex-
plored as a model for alternative schools and elements
of the model should be incorporated into traditional
schools to support the needs of at-risk students. Profes-
sionals trained in the solution-focused model can help
schools to adopt this approach.
Limitations
The major limitation to this study is that it was limited to
a single, solution-focused school program in a single ge-
ographic area. The traditional schools that the students
reflected upon in this study were all from a single school
district and the problems they discussed may have been lim-
ited to issues within this district. However, because many
of 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 benefits
of the solution-focused school may be specific to how this
particular program has been conceived and administered.
However, with few solution-focused programs in existence,
113
it seems that this school can serve as a model for educating
at-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 could
not have accomplished in their traditional schools. They
were able to provide valuable insights into the problems
that traditional schools often have in serving at-risk youth
and into possible solutions offered by a solution-focused al-
ternative school. Given the current emphasis on improving
the academic achievement of at-risk students, these insights
are especially valuable.
Author notes
Christine Lagana-Riordan is a doctoral candidate in social work at the
University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests include school social
work, education policy, and developmental disabilities.
Jemel P. Aguilar is an assistant professor at the University of Texas at
Austin. His current research interests are health-service systems and risk,
gay men’s drug use, and risk and protective factors among low-income
populations.
Cynthia Franklin is the Stiernberg/Spencer Family Professor in Mental
Health at the University of Texas at Austin where she is also on the fac-
ulty of the Dropout Institute for the Center for Preventing Educational
Risk in the Department of Special Education. Her current interests in-
clude efficacy research on the taking charge intervention for improving
the attendance, academic achievement and school completion of school-
age mothers and the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy for
dropout prevention.
Calvin L. Streeter is the Meadows Foundation Centennial Professor in
the Quality of Life in the Rural Environment in the School of Social Work
at the University of Texas at Austin. His current research interests include
school-based services, dropout prevention, and employment supports for
people with disabilities.
Johnny S. Kim is an assistant professor at the University of Kansas School
of Social Welfare. His research areas focus on evaluating school-based
interventions, solution-focused brief therapy, and quantitative research
methods.
Stephen J. Tripodi is an assistant professor at Florida State University.
His current research interests are corrections, criminal recidivism, women
in the criminal justice system, and school social work.
Laura M. Hopson is an assistant professor at the University at Albany
School 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 dropouts
are the same: Ethnic differences in the relations between reason
for leaving school and adolescent substance use. Psychology in the
Schools, 39, 539–547.
 114
Amin, R., Browne, D. C., Ahmed, J., & Sato, T. (2006). A study of an
alternative school for pregnant and/or parenting teens: Quantitative
and 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: Choosing
among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling, B., & Price, T. (2004). Students’ perspectives on alternative, com-
munity, and correctional education schools and services. Journal of
Correctional Education, 55(1), 69–76.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school re-
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:34 10 October 2014
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. American
Secondary Education, 34(1), 24–39.
Dupper, D. R. (2006). Guides for designing and establishing alternative
school programs for dropout prevention. In C. Franklin, M. B.
Harris, & P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), The school services sourcebook: A
guide 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 dropout
prevention and retrieval. Children & Schools, 29, 133–144.
Jordan, W. L., Lara, J., & McPartland, J. M. (1996). Exploring the causes
of early dropout among race-ethnic and gender groups. Youth &
Society, 28, 62–94.
Kelly, M., Kim, J. S., & Franklin, C. (2008). Solution focused brief therapy
in 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 in
schools: A review of the outcome literature. Children and Youth
Services Review, 31, 461–470.
Kleiner, B., Porch, R., & Farris, E. (2002). Public alternative
schools and programs for students at risk of education fail-
ure: 2000–01 (NCES 2002–004). Washington, DC: National
Center 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 information
on dropout prevention: Ideas from practitioners and the literature.
Preventing School Failure, 47, 10–18.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Characteristics of the
100 largest elementary and secondary school districts in the United
Lagana-Riordan et al.
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 from
http://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 of
education 2007 (NCES Report No. 2007–064). Retrieved from
http://www.nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007c). Percentage of high
school dropouts (status dropouts) among persons 16 through 24 years
old, 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 review
of intervention programs. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 377–
395.
Price, D. L., Pepper, K., & Brocato, K. (2006). The importance of making
the well-being of children in poverty a priority. Early Childhood
Education, 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 California
high school. Sociology of Education, 63, 283–299.
Rumberger, R. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2000). The distribution of dropout
and 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 lunch
program. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/
lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf