International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Schools as sanctuaries: A systematic review of

contextual factors which contribute to student
retention in alternative education

Eva O'Gorman, Nancy Salmon & Carol-Anne Murphy

To cite this article: Eva O'Gorman, Nancy Salmon & Carol-Anne Murphy (2016) Schools as
sanctuaries: A systematic review of contextual factors which contribute to student retention
in alternative education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20:5, 536-551, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2015.1095251

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1095251

Published online: 27 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1316

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2016
Vol. 20, No. 5, 536– 551, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1095251

Schools as sanctuaries: A systematic review of contextual factors

which contribute to student retention in alternative education
∗
Eva O’Gorman, Nancy Salmon and Carol-Anne Murphy

Department of Clinical Therapies, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

(Received 16 April 2015; accepted 31 August 2015)

Early school leaving is an international concern. Previous research indicates that the
school context contributes to early school leaving. This systematic review is aimed
to gather marginalised young peoples’ perceptions concerning contextual factors
that contributed to and interfered with their decisions to stay in alternative
education. Twenty-three databases and reference lists of reviews were searched,
eliciting 1586 studies, which were then screened. Data from 24 mixed-methods
studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted and synthesised. Findings
suggested that alternative schools which provided a sanctuary for students
increased student engagement. Schools were sanctuaries when they offered
physical, emotional and psychological safe spaces; fostered a sense of
community; enabled students to affirm their racial/ethnic pride and employed
flexible behavioural supports. Implications for practice and research are discussed.
Keywords: alternative education; school context; student retention; sanctuary;
marginalised young people

Introduction
In Ireland and other Western societies, education is a key determinant of adult life
chances (Byrne and Smyth 2010). National and international research recognise the
negative consequences of early school leaving at an individual and societal level
(Byrne and Smyth 2010; Smyth and McCoy 2009). Research illustrates that student dis-
positions, academic abilities, family factors and life circumstances contribute to the
likelihood of school completion (Eivers, Ryan, and Brinkley 2000). Yet, such research
has been criticised for its tendency to ‘blame the victim’ by focusing on the failures of
the student and their families (Smyth 2005). It has been argued that the real causes for
early school leaving are contained within the school system (Smyth 2005; Wehlage and
Rutter 1986). Schools are not neutral spaces; rather, they are dynamic settings that
shape and constrain opportunities for student success. Educators can influence and
alter school conditions to support student retention (McGregor and Mills 2012).
Researchers have reported that early school leaving occurred due to the structural
and contextual flaws in educational systems (Smyth 2005; Wehlage and Rutter
1986). According to Meeker, Edmonson, and Fisher (2009), early school leavers
believed the school and teachers were responsible for their school failure.
For the purpose of this review, early school leaving was defined as exiting full-time
post-primary education before completing the Leaving Certificate examination or

∗
Corresponding author. Email: nancy.salmon@ul.ie

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Inclusive Education 537

equivalent in other countries. The Leaving Certificate is the final examination in the Irish
secondary school system. ‘At-risk’ is the current term used to describe students who are
more likely than their peers to leave school without qualifications. te Riele (2006) argued
this term was an individualised explanation of school failure, informed by a deficit model
where the problem lay within students. To redirect from deficiencies in students and their
families, the term ‘marginalised young people’ was adopted in the present review. Mar-
ginalised young people are defined as those who encountered inappropriate or insufficient
educational experiences within their family, school or community (Pallas 1989).
Internationally, there is a long history of education system reform aimed at increas-
ing student retention (Aron 2009). One such example of reform is alternative education.
Alternative education was established in the USA for youth whose needs were not met
in traditional schools (Lehr, Tan, and Ysseldyke 2009). The alternative education sector
incorporates diverse service delivery models. This review excluded schools structured
around an educational ideology (e.g. Montessori, Steiner) as they are strongly shaped
by their belief systems. Behaviour management schools were excluded as their focus is
on modifying student behaviour rather than offering alternative methods. This review
was concerned with alternative schools that focused on changing the school through
using innovative curricula and instructional approaches to engage students. Common
characteristics of alternative schools include small size, one-on-one interaction
between teachers and students, student-centred curriculum, flexibility in structure and
a supportive environment (Aron 2009; Thomson and Pennacchia 2015). Henrich
(2005) noted that alternative schools typically improved student attendance, grades,
graduation rates and decreased behavioural disruptions. Given that alternative
schools reported good outcomes for students who experienced failure in traditional
schools, a nuanced understanding of the philosophy and practices that underpin alterna-
tive schools could inform traditional education. The purpose of this review was to
examine marginalised young peoples’ perspectives regarding contextual factors
which contribute and interfere with their decision to stay in alternative schools.

Method
A systematic review which included mixed-methods studies facilitated an understanding of
marginalised young peoples’ experiences reported in the literature (Harden 2010; Higgins
and Green 2011). This method centralised their voices through the inclusion of qualitative
and quantitative studies which obtained marginalised young peoples’ perspectives.

Search and selection process

Twenty-three databases (Table 1) were searched from 2000 to 2012. The literature on
early school leaving extends across multiple disciplines making it challenging to access
and synthesise the literature. Researchers conducting systematic reviews are advised to
seek assistance from those with expert skills in information retrieval strategies (CRD
2009). An expert librarian was consulted regarding appropriate databases to search,
and the development and combination of keywords to use (Table 2). The search strat-
egy took into account that index terms varied across databases. Reference lists of
reviews found during the search were screened to identify relevant studies. In addition,
the references of the retrieved relevant studies were examined for further eligible
studies and the reference of these studies in turn until this strategy was exhausted.
Figure 1 outlines the search results.
538 E. O’Gorman et al.

Table 1. Databases searched.

Academic Search Complete Web of Science
Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts Science Direct
Omnifile Full Text Mega
ERIC and International ERIC PsycARTICLES
Education Research Abstracts online PsycINFO
JsTOR Sociology Abstracts
SAGE Publications The Allied and Complementary Medicine
Taylor and Francis Humanities and Social Database
Sciences journals CINAHL
MEDLINE Cochrane
DARE Web of Knowledge
Education Full Text Social Sciences Full Text
Wiley Online Library

Table 2. Search strategy.

Number 1 Classroom environment∗ , education∗ environment∗ , culture, organisation∗ culture,
school culture, education∗ facilit∗ design, school building, school design, school
space∗ , classroom∗ , computer use in education, virtual classroom, teacher –
student relation∗ , social environment∗ , physical environment∗ , virtual
environment∗ , cultur∗ environment∗ , class size, teacher – student ratio, computer-
based instruction, learner-centred instruction, learning method∗ , teaching
method∗ , education∗ technology, peer relation∗ , inclusive school∗ , computer
assisted instruction, school climate, condition∗ of learning, classroom culture,
classroom climate, learning environment∗ , school condition∗ , learning climate,
learning context, school architecture, school context∗ , school ethos, hidden
curriculum, school relation∗ , school discipline
Number 2 Dropout, early school leav∗ , pushout, education∗ mortalit∗ , stopout∗ , at risk, school
dropout, out of school youth, truan∗ , drop∗ out, school NEAR absen∗ , school
failure, at risk student∗ , marginalis∗ , disadvantage∗ student∗ , student attrition,
retention rate∗ , graduation rate∗ , academic achievement, school graduation,
school expulsion, school retention, school completion, graduat∗ , attendance,
dropout prevention, school experience∗ , enrol∗ , secondary school completion,
student experience∗ , learning experience∗
Number 3 Alternative education, non-traditional education, alternative program∗ , alternative
school∗ , continuation school∗ , community day school∗ , alternative provision,
education∗ alternative∗ , dropout program∗
Numbers 1, 2 and 3 combined

Initially, articles were screened based on the title and abstract. Duplications were
removed. The following inclusion criteria were used:
. Studies published in a peer-reviewed journal.
. Studies published in English.
. Studies which were empirical and primary in nature.
. Studies published from 2000 to 2012.
. Participants included young people who were attending or had attended an
alternative school.
. Studies reported the perspectives of students/former students as an integral part of
their methodology.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 539

Figure 1. Search results.

. Studies investigated factors within the school’s physical, social, cultural or virtual
context which influenced positive outcomes and/or barriers to positive outcomes
in young people.

In total, 1586 titles and abstracts were reviewed by the first author for relevance. Fol-
lowing review of the title and abstract, the complete paper was accessed for each of the
remaining 120 articles. The final eligibility screening was based on the entire article
using specific headings in excel to ensure the paper met the inclusion criteria. Headings
included: aim of study, description of participants, type of paper, school contexts inves-
tigated and indicate whether student voices are a fundamental part of the study. Invol-
vement of at least two researchers at all stages of a review is recommended to minimise
bias and error (CRD 2009). Given the scope and resources of this project, it was not
feasible to have two reviewers conduct all stages of this review. In addressing this limit-
ation, 35% of these 120 studies were independently screened by two reviewers to
enhance consistency and reliability. These reviewers included co-authors and another
colleague with a PhD. Agreement was reached via consensus or through discussion
with a third party when initial reviewers could not reach clear agreement. Thus, 19%
of articles were screened by a third reviewer. This process concluded with 32 studies
meeting the inclusion criteria.
Only recently published studies were considered eligible to ensure that findings
would be applicable to contemporary students. The date of publication of studies
was initially between the years 2000 and 2012. Due to a large volume of articles
found during the search, the criterion for inclusion was then restricted to studies
where data collection occurred in 2000 or after. This methodological decision was sup-
ported by the EPPI-Centre guidelines (2010) that indicate the scope of the review may
be refined when an unmanageable number of studies meet the initial inclusion criteria.
540 E. O’Gorman et al.

Quality assessment
Studies within the refined parameters were assessed for methodological quality. There
are no commonly agreed criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative studies and
indeed, whether the quality of such research can or should be assessed (Hannes
2011; Thomas and Harden 2008). Similar to Thomas and Harden (2008), the view
was taken that the quality of qualitative research should be assessed to avoid
drawing unreliable conclusions. Given that a systematic review requires a consistent
and reproducible approach to appraising evidence, established tools were used.
Qualitative studies were evaluated using a tool developed by Cesario, Morin, and
Santa-Donato (2002), which included a rating scale and clear criteria. The tool con-
sisted of five categories by which the studies were rated: descriptive vividness, meth-
odological congruence, analytical preciseness, theoretical connectedness and
heuristic relevance (Cesario, Morin, and Santa-Donato 2002). It was acknowledged
that not all qualitative studies should be evaluated with the same criteria as they use
different approaches and methods; therefore, requiring different ways to determine if
they are trustworthy. Consequently, criteria within the above categories were ignored
when they were not relevant to eligible studies. The face and content validity of the
tool was assessed by two guideline development teams who supported its utility
(Cesario, Morin, and Santa-Donato 2002). Although reliability has yet to be estab-
lished, this tool provided the foundation for consistent and fair critical appraisals of
studies.
Following exclusion of studies beyond the scope of this review, it was noted that
only survey designs were used in both the quantitative and mixed-methods studies
included. The Centre of Evidence-Based Management’s (2010) tool ‘Critical Apprai-
sal of a Survey’ was used to determine the quality of these articles. The tool
addressed most questions required for a survey but did not address all aspects of a
quantitative study. The McMaster critical review form for quantitative studies (Law
et al. 1998) was therefore employed as well to ensure a thorough appraisal was com-
pleted. Using these tools, all studies were rated overall as ‘good’ if 75–100% of the
total criteria were met, ‘fair’ if between 50% and 74% of the total criteria were met
and ‘poor’ if fewer than 50% of the total criteria were met. Studies assigned a ‘poor’
rating were excluded. This reflects the quality of the papers written from these pro-
jects but is not intended to undermine the potential value of the studies. Thirty-
three studies were quality assessed by the first author. Of these, 24% were quality
assessed by two reviewers to address reliability. A comprehensive search found
that the McMaster tool was not validated (Amstar 2012) and there was no information
about the validation of the Centre for Evidence-Based Management’s (2010) tool.
Despite these limitations, combining these tools established consistent, comprehen-
sive and fair critical appraisal of studies.

Data extraction
An inclusive approach to data extraction was adopted (Noyes and Lewin 2011).
Reviewers systematically documented all relevant data presented in the studies. This
included: the study context (e.g. country, participant characteristics, sample size and
research methods); key findings of the study; and the themes or concepts which the
study authors reported including author interpretation. Ideally more than one reviewer
is involved in data extraction for each included study to promote consistency and
reduce errors (Noyes and Lewin 2011). In cases where this is not possible, it is
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 541

recommended that a sample of data extraction is validated by a second reviewer (Noyes

and Lewin 2011). The first author completed data extraction and 24% were reviewed by
colleagues with differences resolved through discussion. Authors engaged in an itera-
tive process of synthesis, continually returning to reading full-text papers to remain
attentive to the context and meaning of the source documents.

Synthesis
Thematic analysis was conducted following the phases described by Braun and Clarke
(2006). This inductive approach provided the structure for a systematic and nuanced
analysis. The flexibility of thematic analysis enabled the integration of both qualitative
and quantitative data in this synthesis of research findings (Dixon-Woods et al. 2008).
Initially, findings were categorised under contextual headings: physical, social, cultural
and virtual. Descriptive themes were then developed, followed by the generation of
analytical themes.

Results
Twenty-four studies were included. Twenty studies were conducted in America, two
in Canada and two in the UK. An age range of 12–20 was specified in 12 studies.
Given that former students were included in this review, it can be assumed the age
range of participants across the included studies extended beyond 20 years. A range
of ethnic groups were represented including African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic
and biracial participants. Findings across the studies suggested that alternative
schools which provided a sanctuary for students increased student engagement.
Schools were sanctuaries when they offered physical, emotional and psychological
safe spaces; fostered a sense a community; enabled students to affirm their racial/
ethnic pride and employed flexible behavioural supports. A commitment was made
to incorporate a range of student perspectives; thus, data excerpts from across the
data set were used to support identified themes. Participants’ voices often contra-
dicted one another, demonstrating how each individual has unique experiences.
There was room within this review for multiple perspectives to co-exist. The term
‘participant’ refers to students within alternative schools. The results of the review
were written so that participants in each study are also described as participants of
the broader review.

School as a safe space

‘Schools as safe spaces’ broadly captured the perspectives of participants regarding
their school’s care towards them. Participants reported feeling psychologically,
emotionally and physically safe. This is noteworthy as most participants were labelled
disruptive or violent in their previous schools, causing others to feel unsafe. Participants
referred to the presence of gangs in previous schools and described their alternative
school as a safer space.

At my old high school I was tired of all the gang fighting and stabbings. People would
even pull fire drills to get out of school. I could even walk out whenever I pleased and
nobody would challenge me. At this school I can’t even walk down the hall without a
teacher coming up behind me to ask me what I’m up to. At this school, the teachers
542 E. O’Gorman et al.

care what I’m doing. They also don’t put up with fighting or gangs in the school. (Antrop-
González 2006, 291)

This participant was intimidated by gang presence and disliked the lack of rules regard-
ing attendance in her previous school. Participants commented that one reason for
choosing the alternative school was the policy against gangs and violence. Participants
described how disputes were resolved before escalating.

What I like about the school is how it runs, you know, everything calm and smooth. And if
there’s a little ripple, it’s fixed, quick. (Cassidy and Bates 2005, 88)

In addition to feeling physically safe, participants described how they felt psychologi-
cally and emotionally safe. Participants were able to ask questions and admit their lack
of knowledge.

It makes me more comfortable, the environment. Some things . . . you’re supposed to know,
but you just don’t. Like something simple, like which side your heart is on. Like some
people don’t know that I guess. I think it’s on your left side. (Cassidy and Bates 2005, 91)

The alternative schools provided participants with an environment that enhanced learn-
ing, contributed to student retention and fostered a sense of community. ‘As a school
family, you feel safe. This school is awesome, I don’t want to leave’ (San Martin
and Calabrese 2011, 118). A school was a safe space when it (1) fostered a sense of
community; (2) embedded student culture within the school and (3) provided flexible
behavioural support which maintained student integrity. These elements will each be
described in turn.

Fostering a sense of community

Familial descriptors emphasised a strong sense of belonging and identification with the
school community.

I can’t just pinpoint one thing—it’s the whole school, it’s the students, it’s the teachers.
It’s the fact that we kind of have a crappy reputation but we’re really not that bad, the
fact that we have community meetings when we have the togetherness of this huge 110
person family plus the teachers. The way I feel about [alternative school] is really unde-
scribable. It makes me happy to be here, and happy to talk about it . . . . I love it here.
(Jones 2011, 227)

Participants attributed changes in attitude towards school to perceived belonging. Par-

ticipants enjoyed attending their alternative schools, commenting positively on experi-
encing acceptance. Many participants described school as ‘my place’. Perceived
acceptance created behavioural changes as participants felt more comfortable in their
environment. One participant linked this feeling of acceptance to greater participation
in the following excerpt:

I feel like I have my own place, and I feel like I’m not just here for school. Like I’m here to
be active and be involved with things. (Jones 2011, 227)

This sense of community was critical in participants’ decisions to stay in school. Per-
ceived support was essential in establishing a sense of community and included help
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 543

with personal issues, academic issues and with creating attachments within the school.
Staff devoted considerable time to cultivating a strong sense of community.

[Compared to other schools] there’s more like programs . . . get-togethers for the entire
school, like all the winter things and stuff, and like all the different foods and everything
[referring to a multicultural luncheon]. And that’s nice. In other schools they don’t bother
doing that. (Wilkins 2008, 17)

School functions provided opportunities for teachers and students to interact. Schools
also demonstrated acceptance through acknowledging student culture.

Embedding student culture within the school

Two schools in particular, embedded student culture within their environments. This
was achieved through (1) accommodating students’ cultures and (2) symbolic represen-
tation of student culture. Participants discussed the importance of learning about their
own cultures. They spoke of being ‘brainwashed’ in previous schools due to limited
exposure to their own cultural history.

In Hartford and Chicago I was brainwashed. There was always a side of me that wanted to
learn more about my culture. I wanted to learn more than what the schools were telling
me. It was at [alternative school] that I heard of Puerto Rican writers like Lola Rodrı́gues
de Tió, Luis Munoz Marı́n and Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos. But when I was in school they
never taught me what I wanted to know. They would only teach me to pledge allegiance to
the United States flag and sing the Star Spangled Banner. These are all lies. They never
told me about the splendid little war and how the United States went into Cuba, Puerto
Rico, Guam and the Philippines. They never told me how they went in and took
Hawai’i. In the public schools they never taught me about the slaughtering of people in
Vieques. The teachers always tried to make the United States seem all high and
mighty. (Antrop-González 2006, 292)

This participant appeared satisfied with his education in the alternative school as his
cultural history was acknowledged. Puerto Rican nationalism was a strong political
ideology in this school. Nonetheless, not all participants identified with this identity.
Participants of other ethnicities were encouraged to explore their respective histories,
with one commenting:

At first the school talked a lot about Puerto Rico. But then [the school principal] came up
to me and asked me if I wanted to learn more about my culture and history. I was kind of
mad about that because I was asked too late. I said that I thought an African-American
class should be a part of the school. The next year, there was an African-American
class with books and information about Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and stuff on
slavery. I thought that was really cool. (Antrop-González 2006, 293)

The school was challenged by this participant and then proceeded to address their cul-
turally relevant learning need. The author, Antrop-González (2006) observed teachers
using multiple history texts addressing various cultural perspectives regarding life in
the USA. As understood by the author, the school provided a safe space for students
to explore their respective histories and to affirm their racial/ethnic identity.
In addition to respecting participants’ heritage, alternative schools accepted youth
culture, attending to behaviours and fashion. Unlike previous schools, staff readily
engaged with participants rather than demonstrating apprehension.
544 E. O’Gorman et al.

Here is like a family type atmosphere, so they like try and help you more, talk to you more
if you got problems, but at [my other high school] is so big that it’s hard to do that. Plus the
teachers and principal acted like they was scared of most of us [Black students]. (Khalifa
2010, 632)

Khalifa (2010) noted participants were aware that their cultural behaviours were not
accepted at previous schools. He commented that it was unclear whether staff feared
participants or whether there was a cultural misunderstanding. In contrast, the alterna-
tive school supported cultural diversity. For example, teachers were observed respond-
ing seamlessly to verbal cultural expressions and Black English language that students
spoke. Some staff even spoke to students in a similar manner. The author noted most of
the teaching staff was White and the principal was Black. The author reported that the
principal would not allow teachers to devalue the students’ culture. He described how if
a teacher sent a student out of their classroom for being disorderly or donning hyper-
ghettoised clothing, the principal would immediately send the student back to the class-
room with no consequence. The principal would then advocate why the student should
not be removed from class. With leadership from the principal, the school successfully
alleviated devaluation of students’ culture ensuring students could express their culture
in a safe space.
Participants respected a school environment which acknowledged their culture. One
study described how the school environment used art as a medium to connect with stu-
dents’ culture (Antrop-González 2006). The exterior of the school building was covered
in a series of painted murals depicting faces of former and current Puerto Rican political
prisoners and nationalist slogans. Within the school building, the walls of classrooms and
surrounding spaces were covered with posters and pictures of Puerto Rican, Mexican and
African-American historical figures, while a row of student lockers were painted in the
likeness of the Puerto Rican flag. This not only increased student’s pride in their school
environment, but demonstrated the care the school had for its students.

Flexible behavioural supports

Resolving conflict through discussion was used in some alternative schools; therefore,
few punitive measures were used. Limited or no suspensions and expulsions character-
ised some alternative schools. While this is viewed as a positive attribute, one author
commented that a no expulsion policy might explain the extreme behaviours witnessed
in some instances-swearing, fighting and disrespect towards staff (Atkins, Bullis, and
Todis 2005). Some participants advocated for particular students to be excluded
from their school; however, their perspectives were not always shared. Confusion
was expressed by participants as schools wanted to retain them, yet students were
excluded for misbehaviour. Participants became resistant towards school when they
could not see a clear justification for suspension.

They just suspend us. It’s just gonna make us not want to come [to school] anymore. And
it’ll make us want to get into trouble. (McNulty and Roseboro 2009, 423)

Instead of improving student behaviour, suspension that was perceived as unfair by par-
ticipants caused resistance; therefore, the school inadvertently contributed to undesir-
able behaviour. Furthermore, removing students from school sent conflicting
messages. One participant explained:
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 545

There is one thing I hate about school. They always tell you that you shouldn’t come if
you are not going to do something, but if you don’t come to school, then you get in
trouble. It’s like damned if you do and damned if you don’t. (McNulty and Roseboro
2009, 423)

Participants responded well when their voice was heard. A participant described how he
was sent to the principal’s office having refused to do his work:

I got sent down to the office and I told her [the principal] all my reasons and she said,
‘well, I understand’ and she said, ‘well, you don’t have to do it now but maybe if you
could just do it later in your homeroom or something’ and I said ‘ok, I’ll do it then’ . . .
and it was very nice of her. (Wilkins 2008, 20)

The participant felt he was respected and because he perceived the situation as fair, he
agreed to do the work later. Within this study, the author noted that because staff lis-
tened to students’ reasons for acting in certain ways, students tended to conform to
expected behaviours. Some participants were frustrated by inflexible rules and per-
ceived blanket punishments as unfair. Participants in another school favoured greater
discipline. In this particular school, the use of restraint by staff members was considered
necessary by participants for the protection of staff, students and the school building.

If it wasn’t people restraining, the school wouldn’t be here . . . It’d be smashed up and
everything, there’d be people in hospital. (Sellman 2009, 39)

The fact that participants felt restraint was necessary may indicate that they held a
deeply entrenched belief normalising this physical approach. Participants accepted tea-
chers’ powers to restrain them, with the caveat that this approach should be
implemented fairly. A reward system was used in another school and the issue of con-
sistency was raised again. Participants stated they disliked this system as it could be
abused if the relationship between the student and teacher was poor.

It doesn’t really matter what’s used, if things are not good between the teacher and that
person, it can be abused . . . it’s the relationship that really matters. (Sellman 2009, 41)

Participants concluded that systems of both rewards and restrictions could be influ-
enced by the quality of the teacher–student relationship. Participants’ perspectives
regarding discipline policies were complex, with some participants favouring greater
discipline and exclusion, while others argued for more flexible policy interpretations.
Most participants agreed on the need for consistent and fair rules.

Schools as sanctuaries
School was aptly described as a ‘sanctuary’ by one participant (Antrop-González 2006,
89). The concept of sanctuary broadly captured the perspectives of participants regard-
ing their school’s care towards them. Many participants recognised that their alternative
school gave them a second chance. Participants understood the school’s care for them
as its main function. According to one participant, the school existed:

to help kids who want to graduate, who want to get through school and move on and
succeed . . . . It’s like they actually want you to do good. (Schussler and Collins 2006,
1481)
546 E. O’Gorman et al.

Participants felt the school’s main function was enabling them to realise their potential.
Participants noted that their new school environment provided a better match to their
needs.

My environment has changed, and due to that, I feel more positive about myself. I’m start-
ing to finally experience success, which is something that I haven’t had in a long time. I
guess I’m a little more positive now, and my work ethic has definitely improved a lot . . .
. . . I’m trying to turn stuff in on time and really not be ashamed of what I’m turning in.
Hopefully that will carry over to my real world experiences. (Jones 2011, 229)

This participant explained his positive change in relation to his new learning environ-
ment. He linked his change in environment to his improved work ethic and capability.
Participants described a culture of care that provided sanctuary for participants to
succeed and achieve their goals.

Discussion
The studies within this review suggested that alternative schools which provided a sanc-
tuary for students, increased student engagement both academically and within the
school community. Establishing sanctuaries within schools is not a novel approach.
Various educational scholars have described ways to develop sanctuaries for students
(Bloom 1995; Goldfarb 1998; Stanwood and Doolittle 2004). Bloom and Sreedhar
(2008) stated that the concept of sanctuary represented a structured approach to chan-
ging an organisational culture to create a context that maximises students’ potential for
learning and growth while simultaneously mitigating exposure to trauma.
Schools as safe spaces was an over-arching concept in this study, closely aligning
with the notion of school as a sanctuary and provider of cultural safety (MacFarlane
et al. 2007; Stanwood and Doolittle 2004). Achieving these ideals involved system
changes to provide safe spaces, rather than blaming individuals for disruption and per-
ceived threat (MacFarlane et al. 2007; Stanwood and Doolittle 2004). Cultural safety is
a relatively new concept that was developed to promote biculturalism within New Zeal-
and’s nursing programmes (Papps and Ramsden 1996). Central to cultural safety is the
principle that those who receive the service, decide what is experienced as safe or threa-
tening (Papps and Ramsden 1996). This shifts power from providers to consumers of
education. The underlying tenet of biculturalism has been criticised as failing to
address the needs of multicultural societies (Richardson 2004). In response, culture
has been extended beyond Maori and other ethnic groups to become a more inclusive
definition addressing multiple layers of difference – age, gender, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status, occupation, ethnic origin, religious beliefs and disability
(Nursing Council of New Zealand 2011).
Schools in this review provided culturally safe spaces using various methods. Ensur-
ing that students were comfortable to express themselves individually and collectively
(Cavanagh 2008; MacFarlane et al. 2007) was a core mechanism. Participants commen-
ted that when they felt secure in their school context, they were able to focus on academic
tasks. Thus, culturally respectful schools are central to addressing students’ curricular
needs. Second, cultural safety recognises that students’ problematic behaviour may
result from poor alignment between the student and the school context (MacFarlane
et al. 2007). Consistent with existing research, some participants within this project
felt discipline was unjust when implemented inconsistently (Hamill and Boyd 2002).
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 547

They acknowledged that the particular behaviour management technique used did not
matter as it could be influenced by the quality of the teacher–student relationship. Simi-
larly, te Riele (2006) found participants wanted staff to use a more personal approach
such as listening and talking to them when they got into trouble. Some participants
argued that exclusionary practices, such as suspension and expulsion, protected the
school’s reputation while others opposed these views. They argued that such practice
caused students to become resistant. For marginalised young people, the most consistent
documented outcome of punitive measures appeared to be further suspension and expul-
sion and perhaps early school leaving (Skiba and Knesting 2002). This indicates that if
students’ voices are heard and an action agreed, negative trends can be reversed, a finding
supported by McGregor et al. (2015). Thus, listening to student voices is an effective
alternative to exclusion. Finally, the sense of community within these alternative
schools contributed to culturally safe schools. This finding was consistent with those
of McGregor and Mills (2012), who concluded that the concept of community meant
there was a place for everyone.

Limitations
It is recommended that systematic reviews include both published and unpublished
studies to minimise publication bias (Higgins and Green 2011). Given the language
skills of the reviewers, limited financial resources available and capacity to manage
the volume of literature available, only peer-reviewed articles published in English
were included. While the current review has a number of implications for promoting
positive outcomes in alternative schools, it must be acknowledged that transferability
of findings may be difficult. The conclusions of this review are specific to alternative
schools. Yet, one could question how specific when considering how diverse the class-
rooms were and how the staff ratios differed. Student demographics and experiences
also varied. Furthermore, 20 of the included studies were based on US data indicating
that research internationally is in its early stages of development. Given the extent of
connections made between the findings and existing literature, it can be argued that
the findings are trustworthy. With certainty, one can say this research provided
support for contextual factors identified in previous research and expanded on these
by drawing on a wider breadth of student views.

Conclusion and recommendations

This review provided a holistic view of the school context, considering the physical,
social, cultural and virtual domains. A number of insights were gained through this syn-
thesis of literature. First, factors within the school’s physical, social, cultural and virtual
contexts contribute to student retention. The findings of this review indicate some ways
that stakeholders can improve their school context. Second, the perspectives of margin-
alised young people are important. Students considered by some as ‘troublemakers’,
demonstrated their ability to engage in the research process and to provide valuable
insights. Third, drawing from multiple disciplines enabled the school context to be
thoroughly examined. This synthesis of literature can be transferred across stakeholders
with parallel person-environment interests. Finally, practices which establish sanctu-
aries or culturally safe schools were identified. The findings signpost practical impli-
cations that could be implemented both in alternative and traditional schools to
promote student retention.
548 E. O’Gorman et al.

Schools may promote student retention by encouraging a culture of care for lear-
ners. School activities can cultivate a strong sense of community. Through exploring
culturally relevant perspectives, teachers can infuse this knowledge into their classroom
practices and interactions with students. Furthermore, behaviour support should con-
sider the individual needs of students. Rather than unilaterally enforcing rules, students
appear to benefit from an opportunity to explain their circumstances and negotiate
agreements with staff regarding consequences. Staff could benefit from developing
specific skills to disengage from conflict and instead connect with reluctant students.
Multidisciplinary collaboration was proposed to provide effective support for margin-
alised young people both in traditional and special schools (Daniels 2006; Mooij and
Smeets 2009).
Future research into student retention that draws on disciplines that recognise the
intimate connection between person and environment is advised. Employing more
transparent reporting of research methodologies would strengthen this body of edu-
cational literature. Explicitly mapping aspects of the research process would create
greater credibility in this work. Reporting population demographics could facilitate
assessment of transferability of findings. Most studies in this review focused on the
social and cultural contexts. New work could attend to physical and virtual contextual
factors, which students in alternative schools perceive as contributing to their decision
to stay in school. The influence of the school principal on staff practices was described
by the author of one study (Khalifa 2010). It would be useful to examine the relation-
ship between managerial practices and retention rates from the perspectives of students.
Finally given the valuable insights provided by participants, it is recommended that
research continues to centralise student voice in the area of early school leaving.
Practices within alternative schools can provide lessons for traditional schools to
prevent exclusion of marginalised young people. This paper contributes to the inter-
national and multidisciplinary dialogue regarding the role of alternative schools in pro-
viding inclusive education for marginalised young people. Through synthesising
knowledge across disciplines, a broader understanding of the role contextual factors
play in student retention was gained. Given the complexity of early school leaving
and the education system in which students are embedded, thinking more inclusively
about how we can develop knowledge and whose voices can contribute is necessary.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Department of Clinical Therapies, University of Limerick.

Notes on contributors
Eva O’Gorman received a fee waiver to complete her M.Sc. through research in the Department
of Clinical Therapies at the University of Limerick. She is presently working in the UK as a pae-
diatric occupational therapist.
Nancy Salmon is a Lecturer in the Department of Clinical Therapies at the University of Lim-
erick. Her programme of qualitative research attends to issues of equity and social justice, ethical
engagement with people who experience disability and inclusive research approaches.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 549

Carol-Anne Murphy is a Lecturer in Speech and Language therapy in the Department of Clinical
Therapies at the University of Limerick. Her research seeks to understand profiles of childhood
language development and impairments and to identify optimal ways of providing support and
intervention to meet the needs of children with communication difficulties from preschool
through adolescence.

References
Amstar. 2012. Existing Critical Appraisal Tools. http://amstar.ca/Existing_Critical_Appraisal_
Tools.php.
Antrop-González, R. 2006. “Toward the ‘School as Sanctuary’ Concept in Multicultural Urban
Education: Implications for Small High School Reform.” Curriculum Inquiry 36 (3):
273– 301.
Aron, L. Y. 2009. “Alternative Schooling in the USA.” In Making Schools Different: Alternative
Approaches to Educating Young People, edited by K. Te Riele, 10 – 19. London: Sage.
Atkins, T., M. Bullis, and B. Todis. 2005. “Converging and Diverging Service Delivery Systems
in Alternative Education Programs for Disabled and Non-disabled Youth Involved in the
Juvenile Justice System.” The Journal of Correctional Education 56 (3): 253 –285.
Bloom, S. L. 1995. “Creating Sanctuary in the School.” Journal for a Just and Caring
Education 1 (4): 1 – 22.
Bloom, S. L., and S. Y. Sreedhar. 2008. “The Sanctuary Model of Trauma-informed
Organizational Change.” Reclaiming Children and Youth 17 (3): 48– 53.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative
Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77 – 101.
Byrne, D., and E. Smyth. 2010. No Way Back? The Dynamics of Early School Leaving. Dublin:
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and the Department of Education and
Science.
Cassidy, Wanda, and Anita Bates. 2005. “‘Drop-Outs’ and ‘Push-Outs’: Finding Hope at a
School that Actualizes the Ethic of Care.” American Journal of Education 112 (1): 66–
102. doi:10.1086/444524.
Cavanagh, Tom. 2008. “Creating Schools of Peace and Nonviolence in a Time of War and
Violence.” Journal of School Violence 8 (1): 64– 80. doi:10.1080/15388220802067912.
Centre of Evidence-based Management. 2010. Critical Appraisal of a Survey. http://www.
cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Critical-Appraisal-Questions-for-a-Survey.pdf.
Cesario, Sandra, Karen Morin, and Anne Santa-Donato. 2002. “Evaluating the Level of
Evidence of Qualitative Research.” Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal
Nursing 31 (6): 708– 714.
CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). 2009. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for
Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
Daniels, Harry. 2006. “Rethinking Intervention: Changing the Cultures of Schooling.”
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 11 (2): 105– 120. doi:10.1080/
13632750600619273.
Dixon-Woods, M., S. Agarwal, D. R. Jones, B. J. Young, A. J. Sutton, and J. Noyes. 2008.
“Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence within a Systematic Review.” In
Nursing Research Designs and Methods, edited by R. Watson, H. McKenna, S. Cowman
and J. Keady, 89– 100. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
Eivers, E., E. Ryan, and A. Brinkley. 2000. Characteristics of Early School Leavers: Results of
the Research Strand of the 8- to 15- year old Early School Leavers Initiative. Dublin:
Educational Research Centre, St Patrick’s College.
EPPI-Centre. 2010. EPPI-Centre Methods for Conducting Systematic Reviews. http://eppi.ioe.
ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hQBu8y4uVwI%3D&tabid=88.
Goldfarb, K. P. 1998. “Creating Sanctuaries for Latino Immigrant Families: A Case for the
Schools.” Journal for a Just and Caring Education 4 (4): 454– 466.
Hamill, P., and B. Boyd. 2002. “Equality, Fairness and Rights – the Young Person’s Voice.”
British Journal of Special Education 29 (3): 111– 117.
Hannes, K. 2011. Chapter 4: critical appraisal of qualitative research: Cochrane Collaboration
Qualitative Methods Group. http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance.
550 E. O’Gorman et al.

Harden, A. 2010. Mixed-Methods Systematic Reviews: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative

Findings. Technical Brief no. 25. US: National Center for the Dissemination of Disability
Research. http://www.ncddr.org/kt/products/focus/focus25/Focus25.pdf.
Henrich, R. S. 2005. “Expansion of an Alternative School Typology.” The Journal of At-Risk
Issues 11 (1): 25– 37.
Higgins, J., and S. Green. 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions,
version 5.1.0: Cochrane Collaboration. http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
Jones, Jeffrey, N. 2011. “Narratives of Student Engagement in an Alternative Learning
Context.” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 16 (3): 219– 236. doi:10.
1080/10824669.2011.586299.
Khalifa, Muhammad. 2010. “Validating Social and Cultural Capital of Hyperghettoized At-risk
Students.” Education and Urban Society 42 (5): 620 –646. doi:10.1177/
0013124510366225.
Law, M., D. Steward, N. Pollock, L. Letts, J. Bosch, and M. Westmorland. 1998. Critical
Review Form: Quantitative Studies. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University,
Occupational Therapy Evidence-Based Practice Research Group.
Lehr, Camilla, A., Chee Soon Tan, and Jim Ysseldyke. 2009. “Alternative Schools: A Synthesis
of State-level Policy and Research.” Remedial and Special Education 30 (1): 19– 32.
MacFarlane, A., T. Glynn, T. Cavanagh, and S. Bateman. 2007. “Creating Culturally-safe
Schools for Maoiri Students.” The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 36 (1):
65– 76.
McGregor, G., and M. Mills. 2012. “Alternative Education Sites and Marginalised Young
People: ‘I Wish there were More Schools like this One’.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education 16 (8): 843– 862. doi:10.1080/13603116.2010.529467.
McGregor, G., M. Mills, K. te Riele, and D. Hayes. 2015. “Excluded from School: Getting a
Second Chance at a ‘Meaningful’ Education.” International Journal of Inclusive
Education 19 (6): 608 – 625.
McNulty, Carol P., and Donyell L. Roseboro. 2009. “‘I’m not Really that Bad’: Alternative
School Students, Stigma, and Identity Politics.” Equity and Excellence in Education 42
(4): 412– 427. doi:10.1080/10665680903266520.
Meeker, Steven D., Stacey Edmonson, and Alice Fisher. 2009. “The Voices of High School
Dropouts: Implications for Research and Practice.” International Journal on School
Disaffection 6 (1): 40 – 52.
Mooij, Ton, and Ed Smeets. 2009. “Towards Systemic Support of Pupils with Emotional and
Behavioural Disorders.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 13 (6): 597– 616.
doi:10.1080/13603110802047978.
Noyes, J., and S. Lewin. 2011. Extracting qualitative evidence: Cochrane Collaboration
Qualitative Methods Group. http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance.
Nursing Council of New Zealand. 2011. Guidelines for Cultural Safety, The Treaty of Waitangi
and Maori Health in Nursing Education and Practice: Regulating Nursing Practice to
Protect Public Safety. Wellington: Nursing Council of New Zealand.
Pallas, A. 1989. Making Schools More Responsive to At-Risk Students. http://iume.tc.columbia.
edu/i/a/document/15377_Digest_60.pdf.
Papps, E., and I. Ramsden. 1996. “Cultural Safety in Nursing: the New Zealand Experience.”
International Journal of Quality in Health Care 8 (5): 491 –497.
Richardson, S. 2004. “Aoteaoroa/New Zealand Nursing: From Eugenics to Cultural Safety . . . ”
Nursing Inquiry 11 (1): 35 – 42.
San Martin, Teresa L., and Raymond L. Calabrese. 2011. “Empowering At-risk Students
through Appreciative Inquiry.” International Journal of Educational Management 25 (2):
110– 123. doi:10.1108/09513541111107542.
Schussler, Deborah L., and Angelo Collins. 2006. “An Empirical Exploration of the Who, What,
and How of School Care.” Teachers College Record 108 (7): 1460 – 1495. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-9620.2006.00700.x.
Sellman, Edward. 2009. “Lessons Learned: Student Voice at a School for Pupils Experiencing
Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties.” Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 14
(1): 33– 48. doi:10.1080/13632750802655687.
Skiba, R. J., and Kimberly Knesting. 2002. “Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of
School Disciplinary Practice.” New Directions for Youth Development 92 (1): 17– 43.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 551

Smyth, E., and S. McCoy. 2009. Investing in Education: Combating Educational Disadvantage,
Research series number 6. Dublin: ESRI.
Smyth, J. 2005. “An Argument for New Understandings and Explanations of Early School
Leaving that Go Beyond the Conventional.” London Review of Education 3 (2): 117–
130. doi:10.1080/14748460500163906.
Stanwood, H. M., and G. Doolittle. 2004. “Schools as Sanctuaries.” Reclaiming Children &
Youth 13 (3): 169– 172.
te Riele, Kitty. 2006. “Schooling Practices for Marginalized Students: Practice-with-hope.”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 10 (1): 59– 74.
Thomas, J., and A. Harden. 2008. “Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research
in Systematic Reviews.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 8 (45): 1 – 10. doi:10.1186/
1471-2288-8-45.
Thomson, Pat, and J. Pennacchia. 2015. What’s the alternative? Effective support for young
people disengaging from mainstream education. London: The Prince’s Trust.
Wehlage, G. G., and R. A. Rutter. 1986. “Dropping Out: How Much do Schools Contribute to
the Problem?” Teachers College Record, 87 (3): 374 –392.
Wilkins, Julia. 2008. “School Characteristics that Influence Student Attendance: Experiences of
Students in a School Avoidance Program.” High School Journal 91 (3): 12 –24. doi:10.
1353/hsj.2008.0005.