Abstract
Public alternative schools in the United States are multifaceted educational entities that often serve students marginalized from traditional spaces, yet little research exists highlighting the perceptions of alternative school students regarding mental health–promoting school practices. In this qualitative study, the voices of seven alternative high school students (four female and three male) are presented through the use of a targeted focus group. The following two research questions guided this study: What aspects of the public alternative school environment do students perceive to facilitate their mental health? What aspects of public alternative school environments do students perceive as barriers to mental health? Using qualitative descriptive methods, findings suggested that for these students the alternative school is a unique institution, designed for them, in which they can thrive due to the caring nature of the professionals they encounter. Implications for practitioners dedicated to producing mental health–promoting, inclusive school spaces for marginalized youth are presented.
Addressing social determinants of health requires attention to school environments, particularly schools who may be at risk for negative health and academic outcomes because of inequities across a wide range of social and structural determinants (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, n.d). One such institution, public alternative schools, exists to meet the needs of students identified as having a high risk for failing courses or dropping out of school (Wilkerson et al., 2016). Schools in general are known to be an important social determinant of health as the school environment has a meaningful impact on the physical and mental health outcomes of individuals and communities (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, n.d.). However, literature sharing student perspectives of mental health determinants in schools is sparse, and this is particularly true in alternative environments. In this qualitative descriptive study (Kim et al., 2016), we explored alternative school student perspectives of mental health determinants, using a focus group to explore both facilitators and barriers to mental health found in the alternative school environment.
Method
Procedures
Two research questions guided this study. First, “What aspects of the public alternative school environment do students perceive to facilitate their mental health?” Second, “What aspects of public alternative school environments do students perceive as barriers to mental health?” To explore these questions, recruitment was initiated through a state alternative education professional organization. All schools in the organization were sent a recruitment email. One school responded with interest. All students in this school were invited to participate in a focus group through physical fliers posted in the school building. Once recruitment was complete, interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of seven alternative high school students (N = 7), four female (n = 4) and three male (n = 3), in a focus group setting. For this focus group, Author 1, Author 3, and a student research assistant traveled to an in-person school setting and engaged in a semistructured interview protocol focused on understanding students’ perceived barriers and facilitators to mental health in alternative schools. The focus group was audio-recorded and later professionally transcribed for analysis.
Analysis
The research team utilized qualitative descriptive (QD) methods to decide on coding structures and themes. Given the limitation that the data were collected from one focus group at one snapshot in time coupled with the understudied subject matter and population, the goal of the analysis was to describe. As Kim et al. (2016) described, “QD has been identified as important and appropriate for research questions focused on discovering the who, what, and where of events or experiences and on gaining insights from informants regarding a poorly understood phenomenon” (p. 23).
Immediately following the focus group, the analysis team met to discuss the experience and to identify initial impressions of emerging themes. Once the transcription was received, each member of the initial research team read the transcription in its entirety, taking notes and further exploring potential themes. This initial round of coding was completed when all members of the analysis team expressed confidence that major descriptive concepts were represented. Author 1 then initiated a second round of coding by repeatedly comparing and sorting the coding structure to condense the themes identified in the initial round of coding. Final descriptive categorical themes were developed and confirmed.
Results
Three themes emerged from the data. The first two themes focus on major facilitators of mental well-being while the third theme outlines barriers. These themes are titled, Care Matters: Care as Pedagogy, Designed for Us, and The Place for “Bad Kids”: Barriers and Stigmas.
Care Matters: Care as Pedagogy
The first theme to emerge from the data suggested that the communication of care was a unique and impactful characteristic of the alternative school environment. Verbatim, students described the alternative school space with, “They care more here.” One participant described the alternative school space as being a space where teachers were primary deliverers of care, as opposed to their feeling that teachers in the traditional school space outsourced issues that involved care to related service providers to maintain a hyperfocus on academic progress. This student stated, If you’re crying, they [teachers] say, “Do you want to go to the bathroom?” They don’t say, “Hey, do you want to go to the guidance counselor and talk to somebody?” They say, “Go to the bathroom and clean yourself up.”
Another added to the conversation, Yeah, and they’ll listen. No matter like, if they’re doing something, you can sit there and talk to them. They might be doing something but they’re actually going to sit there and ask you questions so that they know, so you know that they’re listening. A regular teacher, if you’re talking to them, they don’t really care.
While these examples speak to the general nature of a teacher showing care toward the students as individuals, students also recognized the reality that care was a pedagogical approach as well. For example, when describing an impactful teacher, one student stated, “He’ll come to your desk and be like, ‘Do you understand it?’ Or he’ll show you. In regular school they’ll move on without you and you have no idea.”
Numerous examples emerged from the data suggesting that these students felt supported. They noted teachers who stopped class to help address social and emotional issues, or to simply work to build relationships, or to know when a class had reached a point of frustration and needed to joke or relax in order to avoid the consequences of mounting frustration. For this group, care mattered. Care was pedagogy.
Designed for “Us”
In addition to care, other relevant themes emerged. Of particular importance was the notion that alternative education was designed with “them” in mind, juxtaposed against traditional spaces that students found restrictive and rigidly designed. School policies that acknowledged the realities of their experiences and needs were perceived as facilitators of mental health. Of the characteristics most cited, small class sizes were certainly the most frequently discussed among this group. One student noted, I can go up and talk to somebody and actually get an answer instead of having to wait for them to get done with what they’re talking to. I can actually go up and talk to them and ask questions without feeling bad of [sic] interrupting the class.
In addition, several students felt that the alternative environment offered an individualized experience where students had greater freedom over their schedules and, to an extent, their curriculum. However, though the reality that students felt that the alternative school setting was better designed for them, in some ways, this cannot be disentangled from care. Even as students cited the flexible nature of alternative education, pointing out online classes and flexible schedules, they returned to care. One student stated, There’s like 32 students in a regular classroom, I mean, when you’re done, everyone’s raising their hand for asking questions and then you’re like, “Well, do I ask now?” Here, you can actually get up and talk to a teacher without feeling bad about it.
The Place for the “Bad Kids”: Barriers and Stigma
Finally, another less positive theme emerged. Students had an awareness that alternative education was perceived as a place for “bad” kids, and they spent ample time both highlighting how this view creates issues for them as well as debunking this myth. In highlighting the challenges, students described what they called “drama.” Their descriptions indicated the manifestation of stressors that led to both verbal and physical altercations, for some. However, these instances of “drama” did not seem unique to the alternative setting. In fact, some students felt that the alternative school setting was more proactive at reducing these problematic instances. One student explained, [You’re] so focused on that drama then you forget about all your homework, all your school work, you’re focused on that, so then you . . . You don’t do as good as you would if you were [avoiding] drama. Here people get As, but then at the regular school they get Cs and Ds. It’s just that you can . . . It’s not as much drama, and if there is drama they nip it in the bud real quick.
For these students, it was important to communicate that they were good kids who worked hard. One student stated, “There’s really no kids that are bad, we just make bad decisions in the wrong moment of time. I promise you half the people are here because they made one bad decision.”
Discussion
The results of this study, coupled with the results of previous research (Epstein, 1992; A. W. Jordan et al., 2017; K. H. Jordan et al., 2019) make it clear that part of the challenging work of teaching is engaging in the act of reciprocated care. The students made clear that they benefit when teachers and schools work to communicate care directly and sometimes in spite of their attitudes and behavior. It is clear, then, that care matters in alternative education.
Over 35 years ago, Nel Noddings (1984) outlined the concept of “care ethics.” Noddings presented the notion that the identity of a person is developed in relation to others and that caring is foundational to human morality. Noddings’s work has evolved as the notion of care ethics has become foundational in understanding the caring and relational aspects of teaching and schooling. It offers a guide to understanding the path of marginalized students in a systems-bound schooling structure. Her theory of care ethics helps situate the findings of this study in context.
To be clear, these data do not indicate that teachers and educational professionals outside the alternative system are uncaring. However, it seems as though characteristics of alternative environments may have allowed these students to experience care more readily. As Noddings (1984) suggested, a caring relationship is one in which care is given, received, and reciprocated. For these students, the alternative school was a place where the caring relationship could develop where it had previously floundered.
Further work is needed to better understand how teachers and students in both alternative and traditional academic environments can engage in the reciprocal act of caring. This study adds to a developing body of evidence (A. W. Jordan et al., 2017; K. H. Jordan et al., 2019) that supports the importance of school structures and processes that facilitate caring relationships to positive student outcomes such as mental health, well-being, and academic success. Future work should further clarify these relationships and identify specific organizational conditions and educational policies that support the development of caring relationships.
Limitations
The most significant limitation to this study is the reality that only one group of students in one school participated in the focus group. For this reason, the findings presented should be considered in context. Still, there is a large gap in the literature when it comes to including the voices of alternative school students, and these students had valuable information to communicate. These findings add to the existing body of evidence to present a larger picture of the overall function of care in alternative education.
Implications for Practice and Further Research
Opportunity exists for social change and increased communication of care in schools, particularly for students who have experienced challenges in the academic environment. Implications exist for individual teachers, who may consider increased use of relationship-building techniques in classrooms. Implications are also apparent at the organizational level, where policies that promote increased perceptions of caring such as smaller class sizes, flexibility in curriculum, and attention to teacher well-being may improve student outcomes. Professional educators, in this view, should take caring as serious and structured business, formally planning, analyzing, and reflecting, just as they would with content material.
Future research should consider the ways in which teachers go about enacting purpose-focused care as well as how students receive and perceive such attempts at caring by professionals. Professionals in alternative settings should consider these findings as both supportive of the work in which they engage as well as a potential pathway for future professional development. Intentional care, in this instance, played a vital role in creating a mentally healthy school space.
