Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:

http://qre.hipatiapress.com

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: A Case Study of an Alternative

School for Students with Emotional Disturbance (ED)
Matthew Hoge1 & Eliane Rubinstein-Avila2
1) Departmentof Special Education & Literacy Studies, Western Michigan
University, United States of America
2) Department of Teaching, Learning & Sociocultural Studies, University of
Arizona, United States of America
Date of publication: October 28th, 2014
Edition period: June 2012-October 2014

To cite this article: Hoge, M., & Rubinstein-Avila, E. (2014). Out of Sight,
Out of Mind: A Case Study of an Alternative School for Students with
Emotional Disturbance (ED). Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3) 295319. doi: 10.4771/qre.2014.49
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/qre.2014.49

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).

Qualitative Research in Education Vol.3 No.3 October 2014 pp. 295-319

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: A

Case Study of an Alternative
School for Students with
Emotional Disturbance (ED)
Matthew Hoge
Western Michigan University

Eliane Rubinstein-Avila
University of Arizona

(Received: 6 January 2014; Accepted: 22 June 2014; Published; 28 October

2014)
Abstract
When the least restrictive educational environment is deemed unsuccessful for
students labeled as having emotional disabilities (ED), they are often placed in either
self-contained classrooms (when available) or alternative schools. Despite these
schools growing numbers, little is known about them and their students, who are
segregated from the mainstream student population. This qualitative case study
focuses on the perspectives of staff (i.e., the principal, school psychologist, teachers,
and aids) in one such alternative school for students with ED. Based on interviews,
findings revealed staffs frustration with the: (1) schools reputation within, and
isolation from, the larger school district; (2) lack of follow up and communication
with sending schools; (3) lack of professional development; and (4) lack of
oversight from school district administration. The paper also conveys staffs vision
for addressing some of the challenges. These findings may contribute to the largely
unsuccessful fulfillment of the schools original intentionto return its students to
their original schools (i.e., the least restrictive educational environment). The
authors argue that in-depth inquiry into such schools is a social justice issue.
Keywords: special education, emotional disturbance (ED), social justice, alternative
schools, qualitative case study

2014 Hipatia Press

ISSN: 2014-6418
DOI: 10.4471/qre.2014. 49

Qualitative Research in Education Vol.3 No.3. October 2014 pp. 295-319

Fuera de la Vista, Fuera de la Mente:

Un Estudio de Caso de una Escuela
Alternativa para Estudiantes con
Desordenes Emocionales (ED)
Matthew Hoge
Western Michigan University

Eliane Rubinstein-Avila
University of Arizona

(Recibido: 6 de enero de 2014; Aceptado: 22 de junio de 2014; Publicado:

28 de octubre de 2014)
Resumen
Cuando el entorno educativo "menos restrictivo" se considera fracasado para
estudiantes etiquetados com desordenes emocionales (DE), ellos se colocan a
menudo, ya sea en aulas separadas (cuando estan disponibles) o en escuelas
alternativas. A pesar del nmero creciente de este tipo de escuelas, se sabe poco
acerca de sus estudiantes, que estn separados de la poblacin estudiantil general.
Este estudio de caso cualitativo se centra en las perspectivas del personal (es decir,
el director, el psiclogo de la escuela, los profesores, y los ayudantes) en una de esas
escuelas alternativas para estudiantes con DE. Sobre la base de entrevistas, los
resultados revelaron la frustracin del personal con: (1) la reputacin dentro de la
escuela y el aislamiento en el distrito escolar; (2) la falta de seguimiento y
comunicacin con "escuelas que envan; (3) la falta de desarrollo profesional; y (4)
la falta de supervisin por la administracin del distrito escolar. El documento
tambin expresa la visin del personal para abordar algunos de los desafos. Estos
hallazgos pueden contribuir al, en gran parte fracasado, cumplimiento de la
intencin original de la escuela es retornar a sus estudiantes a sus escuelas originales
es decir, al entorno educativo "menos restrictivo". Los autores argumentan que la
investigacin en profundidad sobre estas escuelas es una cuestin de justicia social.

Palabras clave: educacin especial, desorden emocional (DE), justicia social,

escuelas alternativas, estudio de caso cualitativo

2014 Hipatia Press

ISSN: 2014-6418
DOI: 10.4471/qre.2014. 49

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

297

he Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990

(subsequently amended in 1997 and 2004) ensures that students
with exceptional needs are provided special education services to
maximize their opportunity for success in school. Emotional disturbance
(ED), one of 13 disability categories protected under IDEA, is a condition
that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or other health factors, but
still hinders a students ability to learn (IDEA, 2004). Students who have
been labeled as having ED may have difficulty building interpersonal
relationships, struggle to perform appropriate behaviors under regular
circumstances, encounter pervasive unhappiness or depression, and/or
develop physical symptoms or fears related to personal or school-based
problems (IDEA, 2004). They may exhibit both externalizing (aggression,
non-compliance, acting-out) and/or internalizing behaviors (depression,
anxiety, feelings of physical illness) that adversely affect their educational
performance (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). These behaviors
contribute to common negative experiencesassociated with students with
ED, including academic difficulty (Coleman & Vaughn, 2000; Kauffman &
Landrum, 2013), high incidence of school suspension and expulsion
(Bradley, Henderson, & Monroe, 2004), lower graduation rates (Kauffman
& Landrum, 2013), and poor post-school outcomes, including high rates of
unemployment and incarceration (Sitlington & Neubert, 2004, Wagner,
Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein, & Sumi, 2005).
Complexities around identification of students with ED and the
appropriateness of their educational placements abound. While the
identification rate for students with ED hovers around 1-2%, some
researchers suggest that 3-6% is a more realistic prevalence rate
(Kauffmann & Landrum, 2013). Students with ED are more likely to be
placed in non-traditional educational settings when compared to all students
in special education (Becker et al., 2011; Landrum, Katsiyannis, &
Archwamety, 2004). The determination of ED, heavily reliant upon
evaluator judgment and social context, has been brought into question,
specifically due to the disability not being identified equally across ethnic
groups and genders, both in its labeling of students with the disability and
its segregation of labeled students into restrictive educational settings
(Anastasiou, Gardner, & Michail, 2011; Osher, Cartledge, Oswald, Artiles,
& Coutinho, 2004; Skiba, et al., 2008). Students who are African American,
male, economically disadvantaged, and from single-parent homes, foster

298

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

care or alternative home environments tend to be overrepresented in the

category (Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Wagner, et al., 2005).
IDEA protects the rights of students with disabilities by providing a free,
appropriate public education, an individualized education program (IEP),
and placement in the least restrictive educational environment (LRE)
(IDEA, 2004). Furthermore, IDEA ensures that schools provide a
continuum of educational placements (i.e. general education classroom,
self-contained classroom, alternative school) and that students with
disabilities must be educated in the least restrictive environment possible
(IDEA, 2004). Students with ED are placed in settings outside of the
general education classroomremoved from the least restrictive
educational environment and placed into more restrictive onesat one of
the highest rates across all special education categories (Bradley,
Henderson & Monfore, 2004; Sitlington & Neubert, 2004).
Educational setting, a decision included in a students Individualized
Education Program (IEP), serves to meet the specific needs of the student
as it relates to their disability. Therefore, non-traditional educational
placements (i.e. alternative schools) should employ evidenced based
practices for the population they serve, demonstrate fidelity in their
implementation, and individualize those practices to meet the specific needs
of each student (Cook & Schirmer, 2003). However, while a change of
placement to a more segregated setting should be a data-based decision
made according to a students specific educational needs, removal is often
based on subjective variables (Kauffman & Landrum, 2013). The
expectation is the placement into the more restrictive setting will produce
positive outcomes for the student (Hayling, Cook, Gresham, State, & Kern,
2008). Yet, as we are reminded by Connor and Gabel (2013),Although
special education ensures a free and appropriate education for students and
youth with disabilities, in many cases it falls short of the equality of
opportunity assured within federal laws (p.101).
Research on alternative schools for students with ED is limited (Tobin &
Sprague, 1999). Therefore, we selected Hintonan alternative school for
students with EDserving a large school district in a mid-size
southwestern city, for our case study. The case study contributes to the
intersection of social justice and special education by exploring the role of
an alternative school (for students labeled ED) from the staffs point of
view regarding: (1) the role of the school within the larger school district;

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

299

(2) the programs goal and (3) their own effectiveness in helping reach that
goal. Interviews with six participants (a cross-segment of the staff),
revealed feelings of frustration and disconnectedness from the larger school
district. In general, participants felt that the school operated primarily as a
sanctuary (or dumping ground) for students who are deemed undesirable by
sending schools.
Special Education From a Social Justice Lens
We chose a social justice framework to inform this work because we affirm
that social justice bridges the transitional space between the realities
that exist and those that are possible (McNulty & Roseboro, 2009, p. 413).
Alternative Schools for Students with ED: A Brief Overview of the
Literature
Despite the existence of studies examining the attitudes or perceptions of
special education teachers, few studies have focused on those working in
alternative schools (Emery & Vandenberg, 2010)especially schools
serving students with ED. In fact, research on segregated programs for
students with ED has focused mainly on residential placements and juvenile
correctional facilities (Houchins, et al, 2010; Lakin, Leon & Miller, 2008).
The few studies that have examined schools for students with ED have
compared students placed in alternative schools with students placed in
self-contained classrooms (Lane, Wehby, Little, & Cooley, 2005a; Lane,
Wehby, Little, & Cooley, 2005b; Mattison, 2011). Other studies have
evaluated programs effectiveness (Mattison & Schneider, 2009), explored
placement considerations into and out of alternative programs (Hoge,
Liaupsin, Umbreit, & Ferro, 2012), and examined the effectiveness of
targeted behavioral interventions within such schools (Turton, Umbreit, &
Mather, 2011).
It is essential to bring to light the national profile of teachers who serve
students with ED. Billingsley, Fall and Williams (2006) conducted a
national study to compare teachers of students with emotional and
behavioral disorders (EBD) with non-EBD special educators, focusing on
individuals characteristics and readiness to teach. The authors found that
teachers serving students with EBD had significantly fewer years of

300

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

teaching experience, were less likely to be certified (with a small proportion

holding certification in core academic domains), and were more likely to
have acquired their teaching positions through alternative programs
compared to other special educators (Billingsley et al., 2006).
Alternative schools date back to the 1960s (Kim & Taylor, 2008; Quinn,
Poirier, Faller, Gable, & Tonelson, 2006) and have recently proliferated
(special and regular education sectors). In fact, their numbers grow with the
increase of disenfranchised students (i.e., dropouts and push-outs) (Kim
& Taylor, 2008). These schools have operated under a high degree of
autonomy and limited scrutiny (Lange & Sletten, 2002; Lehr & Lange,
2003b) and school districts struggle with these schools negative stigmas as
dumping grounds for students who have fallen behind and are considered
at-risk (Kim & Taylor, 2008). Some scholars express concern at the rapid
increase in these programs despite limited evidence of their efficacy (Tobin
& Sprague, 1999). Consequently, little is known about students with
disabilities attending these programs (Lehr, Tan, & Ysseldyke, 2009). This
contributes to the difficulty to formulate a research agenda across programs
(Ahearn, 2004; Quinn et al., 2006).
In an investigation of alternative schools, Gorney and Ysseldyke (1993)
found that students with emotional and behavioral disorders were
overrepresented in these programs. In a national survey conducted with
state directors of special education, Lehr and Lange (2003a) found that
many of the respondents did not have accurate data on the number of
students with disabilities served in their alternative programs. The authors
also identified several concerns related to the use of alternative programs
nationally, including: (1) their rapid growth; (2) student placement; (3)
educating students with severe needs; (4) enrolling students as a
consequence of disciplinary issues in mainstream schools; and (5) an
overall lack of oversight and accountability (Lehr & Lange, 2003a).
Given the paucity of research on alternative schools for students with
ED, several domains have been identified as ripe for further inquiry
(Atkins, Bullis, & Todis, 2005). Domains that are in need of further
examination include: a) accurate identification of the number of students
served by these programs; b) rationales for placement into, and out of,
programs; c) appropriateness and quality of special education services; d)
outcomes to be monitored, and e) issues surrounding the measurement of
such outcomes (Hoge et al., 2012; Lehr& Lange, 2003a; Lehr& Lange,

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

301

2003b). Researchers continue to express concern as to the effectiveness of

these programs and their ability to successfully transition students back to
less restrictive educational settings (Hoge et al., 2012; McNulty &
Roseboro; 2009).
Methods
This exploratory, qualitative case study (Stake, 2000) relied on individual
interviews, conducted one-on-one, by the 1st author. The school
psychologist was the first to be contacted, because of her direct access,
engagement and collaboration with the entire staff, and implemented a
snowball sampling to broaden the pool of participants. This technique relied
on individuals recommendations of plausible participants for the study,
who would in turn refer others and so on (Marshall & Rossman, 2010).
Total participants (6) included the school psychologist and the school
principal, two classroom teachers (high school and elementary), an
intervention technician (teaching assistant), and a transition liaison.
Pseudonyms were used throughout the paper to preserve the anonymity of
the district, the school, and case study participants.
Hinton Alternative School: The Setting
The case study was conducted in a southwestern state, which has
experienced a rapid growth in alternative schools for students with ED
during the past few years. The Hinton School was an alternative school
specifically serving students labeled as having EDin one of the largest
local districts in the area, which was the main reason the site was selected.
Once special education teams identified that a students specific needs
could not be met in his/her regular education classroom or in a selfcontained classroom within their school, students were placed at Hinton.
The mission of the school, as outlined by the states Department of
Education, was to prepare students to be transitioned back to a less
restrictive educational environment over a period of time.
Hinton included one elementary, two middle, and three high school
classrooms, with a total enrollment of approximately 75 students (at the
time data was collected). Hinton was the least inclusive educational setting
for students with ED offered by the district; students at Hinton had no

302

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

access to non-disabled peers. As part of their placement at Hinton, students

were to receive instruction specific to the needs outlined in their
Individualized Education Program (IEP). Often times, students who had
been unsuccessful in previous settings due to extreme behavioral problems
were placed into this setting by their home school, also referred throughout
the paper as the sending school.
Hinton offered a small, controlled environment, behavioral and social
skills instruction, flexible academic approach, and a full time school
counselor who provided a therapeutic component to support students.
Classrooms at Hinton were capped at 12 students and offered a four-to-one
ratio of students to adult. The ethnic composition of the students mirrored
that of the school district as a whole. Thus, minority students were not
overrepresented at Hinton. As to gender, the population served was almost
entirely male. Each classroom was staffed with one lead teacher and two
intervention technicians (teachers aide or paraprofessional). Although the
intervention technicians served similar roles to teacher aides, at Hinton they
focused mainly on monitoring and supporting the behavioral needs of
students. Unlike other schools in the district, the setting allowed for the use
of behavioral methods not typically implemented by staff in other settings,
which included a program-specific restraint procedure and a seclusionbased time out environment.
Participants
The six participants in this case study were Caucasians and comprised 20%
of total school staff. The participation of the school psychologist and the
principal were deemed essential, because their roles required frequent
communication with other study participants and with other schools in the
district. Mrs. Robbins, the principal of Hinton, had served in her current
position for the past three years. From her perspective, her primary
responsibilities included maintaining a safe and orderly environment,
promoting academic achievement for students, and evaluating the schools
nearly 30 staff members. Mrs. April, the schools psychologist, divided her
time between Hinton and other schools in the district. As a former teacher
at the school, Mrs. April reported she had a positive rapport established
with staff and felt she had personal knowledge of day-to-day activities of
the program. While her primary emphasis was ensuring the school

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

303

complied with special education requirements, her position required

frequent engagement with teachers and intervention technicians and
working one-on-one to develop and implement strategies for students.
Mr. Ayers, a 9th grade high school teacher, had worked at the school for
15 years. His responsibilities included teaching all core subjects to students
(i.e. Math, Science, Social Studies, and English) as well as managing each
students IEP. He gained experience working with students with ED early
in his life as a camp counselor. Mrs. Bennett, the other participating
teacher, taught 10th grade high school and was entering her second year at
Hinton. With a primary background in Speech and Hearing, she
acknowledged that most of her training for the population at Hinton was
received on the job. Like Mr. Ayers, Mrs. Bennett was responsible for
providing instruction across core academic subjects as well as managing
students IEPs. With little, if any, background in working with students
with ED, Mrs. Bennett shared that she received support from a mentor
provided by the school district, participated in district training
opportunities, when those were available, and actively sought out staff
advice.
Mrs. Ryan was the intervention technician (teachers aide) in a high
school classroom. Previously she was a teacher assistant in a self-contained
classroom for students with ED. Her duties included recording data on
student behavioral performance, prompting desirable behaviors, providing
one-on-one and small group instruction, and intervening when undesirable
behaviors occurred. To support her lack of an academic background in
special education, she attended district trainings, asked for feedback from
her classroom teacher, and relied on personal experiences as a foster parent
to guide her practice.
Mr. Albertson, a veteran of the school of 20+ years, worked as a
transition liaison. The position, created by the school, supported students
returning from Hinton back to a less restrictive educational setting, often a
self-contained classroom. He began working as a campus monitor and later
served as an intervention technician. In addition to use duties as transition
liaison, Mr. Albertson was responsible for managing student behavior data
for all classrooms, communicating with parents when behaviors required
higher levels of interventions on campus (restraints or seclusion), and
providing support in classrooms when additional personnel were needed.
With no formal academic training in emotional disturbance and behavioral

304

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

disorders, Mr. Albertson relied on his years of experience working at the

school to foster his personal relationships with students and promote
positive communication.
Data Collection & Analysis
This exploratory qualitative case study (Stake, 2000), relied on one-on-one
interviews with educators and staff members, including the school principal
and the school psychologist, to examine the perceptions and lived
experiences of participants. The study focused on how participants
perceived: (1) the role of the school within the larger school district; (2) the
goals of their program/school; (3) their effectiveness in reaching those
goals, and ultimately, the quality of the services the staff felt they were able
to provide. Data collection (an adaptation of Seidmans 2006 three-phase
interviews) occurred during the 2011-2012 school year and involved two
semi-structured interviews with each participant across a two-month period.
First and second interviews, for each participant, were conducted within
two weeks of each other (Merriam, 1988). The interviewees selected the
setting for the interviews; sessions lasted between 30 to 60 minutes, and all
interviews were audio recorded (Marshall & Rossman, 2010). Taking
Seidmans (2006) lead, the first semi-structured interview sought to elicit
(a) participants perspectives regarding the purpose for the school, (b) a
description of participants professional duties and expectations for their
position, and (c) their understanding of the reason students attended the
school. The second interview focused more on interviewees reflection
regarding: how the school met the students special educational needs and
how to ameliorate the program for this vulnerable student population.
During the second interview participants were also asked to reflect on
emerging themes (in the first interview), which the 1st author found after an
initial analysis (Seidman, 2006). Following each interview, the recording
was transcribed verbatim and a copy of the transcription was sent to each
respective participant to validate the accuracy of the transcript (Marshall &
Rossman, 2010).
Two steps were followed to establish the validity of the interviews:
member checks and peer examination (Marshall & Rossman, 2010;
Merriam, 1988). Peer examinations were completed through collaboration
with special education colleagues reviewing the transcripts and initial

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

305

coding of data (Merriam, 1998), vis-a-vis the research objectives previously

stated. Further analysis of data followed several steps (Marshall &
Rossman, 2010). The systematic collection, organization, open-coding of
the data, and interpretation directly addressed the studys initial research
statements (Merriam, 1988).
Findings
Although Hinton is expected to fulfill the importantyet complicated
duty of educating students with ED for a large urban school district and
ensure that students transition back to their original schools, our findings
unveiled significant programmatic challenges. We organized the findings
into 3 major themes: (1) Isolation; Hintons relationship with the schools in
the district was perceived by staff as disconnected, and, in some ways
contentious; (2) Limited investment in student outcomes by sending
schools once placed at Hinton; (3) Hinton lacked the resources (qualified
staff and district support and oversight) needed to be effective. The fourth
theme, one that did not address our initial research inquiry, but was loud
and clear across the data, was: (4) Staffs views toward future solutions for
some of the current problems
Isolation: Staffs Perception of Hintons Place Within the Larger
District
Collectively, the participants pointed out that most educators in their district
were likely to be unaware of the existence of Hinton unless someone in the
district was directly involved in the placement of a student at the school.
As the transition liaison affirmed: There are so many in other schools that
dont even know we exist. They have no clue. They have no idea.Perhaps
the limited knowledge about Hinton (and its purpose) outside its walls
contributed to its ominous reputation across the district. Participants shared
that those who knew of Hinton had negative reactions towards the school.
The behavior interventionist again: They [referring to educators outside of
their school] cringe when they hear the name of our school. In fact,
participants voiced that since Hinton was primarily known for the students
placed there, the programs identity was more closely aligned with the
negative reputation of its students than its actual purpose (to provide

306

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

educational services for students with a disability). Mrs. Robbins, the

principal, shared that individuals within the school district perceived her
students [as] criminalsscary. More about the students being bad people.
For example, the school psychologist claimed that the program (being
placed at Hinton) was often presented as consequence, not educational
accommodation, for students performing inappropriate behaviors. She
shared that you will have specific administrators at other schools use us
as a threat, to say to the student that if you dont stop whatever behavior,
you will be going to Hinton.
The participants, however, did not share the same perceptions of their
own students. In fact, their positive attitudes toward their students, and
their belief in them, may have contributed to their personal reasons to
continue working at Hinton despite its reputation. Mrs. Bennett, the
classroom teacher, took pride in the students who were entrusted to her
care. I personally really enjoy my job. I know a lot of people look at me
and think Im crazy, but once you get to know these kids, and you build that
relationship, they are great kids. Other participants shared similar
sentiments. As one of the behavior interventionists affirmed: For the most
part, these kids are amazing. This is their last chance. So here, we try to
step up, to where, we can move them back. A clear oversight on our part
(the authors) was not to probe deeper into what was meant, in this case, by
to step up. However, the teacher did describe the effort she invested in
her teaching, and her frustration with the lack of recognition she received
from colleagues outside of the school.
It is hard when you are putting in so much of your time and effort.
And I put so much into my classroom. Im not here just 8 to 3:30.
I take stuff home. Im always thinking about different ways [to
instruct]. And putting in so much of my own time and its kind of
sad to think nobody knows what I am doing here.

The principal reflected on the impact of having a program like Hinton

for the school district:
I think that these students are not at a regular school, causing a
disturbance, being aggressive, endangering other students, and
[making sure] that other students can learn. I really do see that its
about the other students being able to learn because these students

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

307

have been removed from that environment. We are successful

because of what our students dont do at the other schools.

In most scenarios, Hinton lacked the authority to reject the placement of

a student into their program. Situations arose when teachers at Hinton asked
why a specific student was to be placed at their school. Mrs. Ryan, the
intervention technician, questioned the appropriateness of some students
placement at Hinton and whether they were given a chance to succeed at
their former school: In a lot of cases, we get some kids that we are
wondering, Why are you here? There are some kids that come here really
quickly. Despite this, participating staff accepted the duties of working
with all students placed into their program. However, participants did not
find that their open arms approach was reciprocated when Hinton
determined a student was prepared to return back to a less restrictive
setting. Another participant described her disappointment when one of her
successful students returned back to Hinton after being transitioned to their
home school only a short time earlier. Smart kid, and they sent him back in
a week After talking to them, I feel, they didnt try anything. How can
they send you guys [them] back and say that you cant make it when, on
their end, I feel like they are not holding up their part, at all.
Lack of Involvement from Sending School once Students were Placed
at Hinton
One of the most common sentiments expressed was that once a school
placed a student at Hinton, the previous school washed their hands clean
of them and were no longer involved or interested in their outcomes. Mr.
Ayers, the veteran classroom teacher, expressed his view toward the
attention from sending schools: Nothing. If I get a kid from a school
nothing. No follow up. Nothingnot even a letter. How is my former
student? There is no ownershipZero. As expressed by the school
psychologist: Ive only had two instances over the past four years where
the psychologist [from the sending school] emails me to say: How is
the student doing?
Both classroom teachers noted that in their opinion, the sending
schools did not view Hinton as a transition school. Voicing the sending
schools, Mr. Ayers made this observation: Once you [Hinton] have them:

308

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

Thank you; I can relieve myself of the burden of that student. Mr.
Albertson, the intervention specialist, also claimed that in his twenty years
at Hinton, he had found that most commonly Hinton was used as a means
for sending schools to rid themselves of problem students. Other
participants echoed this sentiment. According to several, being known as a
Hinton student had a tremendously negative impact on a students status.
On the rare event in which a student transitioned back to the home school,
the principal noted how the students prior association with Hinton
continued to impact their identity.
Throughout interviews, a common theme among staff was centered on
whether or not the programs actual purpose was to be a transition school.
This most often arose during discussions of the placement process for a new
student into their program. The school psychologist, who attended all new
student intake meetings, in which the IEP is updated for the new
educational setting, claimed that the main goal of such meetings appeared
to be more about getting the student out of the home school than preparing
the student for success at Hinton:
I dont think they [the home school] come readily with information
that is important for a student. Unless we ask the question, no one
comes with transfer grades for that student. So, I guess when you
talk about the relationships, it is more of our initiating, our digging,
our getting what we need, than others being thoughtful, mindful,
and, I guess, supporting the transition from the sending end.

Participants seemed resigned to the fact that once a school placed a

student at their site, nobody was likely to check back, to monitor how the
student was progressing. Reiterating, and in some way summarizing what
we heard from the other participants, Mrs. April, the school psychologist
said the following: I think they [the sending schools] see it as getting rid
of a student. As far as what happens to the student, they dont really care
that much.
The participants appeared to struggle with identifying clear expectations
for their program based on the limited involvement of sending schools.
All participants were aware of the broad state guidelines set for the
operation of schools like Hinton: to address the behavioral needs of
students with ED and transition them back to their home schools. However,

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

309

the expectations communicated to them by sending schools, even if

implicitly, seemed very different to the participants. The absence of agreed
upon expectations for the school, as perceived by the staff, seemed to be a
major hindrance to defining program effectiveness. An underlying question
many faced was: How does a school achieve goals that do not exist in an
explicit manner?
Low Expectations? A Program Under-Prepared and Under-Supported
by the District
Each individual interviewed struggled to answer the questions: How is
success defined for this school? and How do you know if you did a good
job at the end of the day? For several participants, success was defined by
the absence of trouble. While not proudly, most participants reported that if
parents were not complaining and students were not restrained or put into
seclusion, then they had a successful day.
For others, the two teachers most notably, an effective day meant the
support staff (i.e., behavior interventionists) showed up on time to work and
exhibited positive attitudes while doing their job. As the topic of program
effectiveness was explored, few responses related to students academic
outcomes, achievement of behavior goals, social skills development or
transition to less restrictive educational environments. Two staff members
noted that since Hinton was not under the [districts] radar, its academic
program suffered. Specifically, the school psychologist described what she
perceived as low fidelity in implementing students IEPs. Mrs. April shared
the following:
I dont know if [the teachers] take them [IEPs] as seriously as
maybe other special education teachers, in terms of actual goal
writing. What they are actually working on. Progress monitoring.
Checking in on those things. And partly it is because they are
working with these students with extreme behaviors. They dont
have as much time for some of those daily progress-monitoring
activities I think a lot of the paperwork, the procedures They
dont necessarily follow through with their basic requirements of
paperwork.

310

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

The lack of formal training to work with this particular student

population, staff development and clear expectations from sending
schools, seemed to convey to staff members that they had to rely on their
own personal training and educational philosophies, rather than on
research-based best practices. Mrs. Bennett, the classroom teacher, noted
that although she had a masters degree in special education, she had ...
very little [training] when it came to behavior. As for Mr. Ayers, the
veteran teacher candidly shared, Im what youd say, old school special ed.
Just more of a counseling approach. I would be the least focused on
academics. Ive come a long way, but I just dont think it is that important.
With that said, they [students at Hinton] are here to go to school. So, as
much as you can get in, that is important.
One can only wonder in what ways the staffs perceptions of Hinton
may impact the quality of services provided to students. One specific area
to consider is Hintons level system, measured using behavior point sheets,
that served as an integral part of evaluating program effectiveness for
students. The point sheets were used as the primary tool to assess and
record student behavior and determined when students met performance
expectations and whether they were prepared to transition to a less
restrictive setting. Although used by the entire staff, the staff was not
systematically trained to use them. They themselves realized that there was
littleif anyinter-rater agreement in how they assess students behavior
using the tool. Mr. Albertson admitted: Believe it or not, we are not trained
on that [referring to the point system]. We talk about it all the time. There
would be many times it would be way off. Mrs. Ryan, the aide, felt that
the tool meant different things to different members of the staff: We have
tried to say lets be on the same page, but everybody, I think, has different
priorities. We try to be across the board, but we are all different. Despite
these issues, none of the participants had ever been questioned about the
reliability of the behavior point sheet despite the schools emphasis on its
use as a primary evaluation tool, further bringing into question program
accountability.
Discouraged, Mrs. Robbins, the principal, reflected on the challenge she
faced with staffing the program at Hinton. Given the reputation of the
school and its students, very few people pursued a position there. Yet, the
school was mandated to provide a specific staff to student ratio to meet

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

311

program requirements. This created a challenging power dynamic between

the principal and her staff:
I think some of our staff feels like, like its an empowerment
almost. Because they are working at this school and nobody else
wants to do it That they are never going to get fired, because
who else is going to work with these people? Because they can say,
we dont have to do that. Our kids arent going to do well on
statewide tests. So, I feel like, there is a kind of mental model that
prevents people from going to their heightened level of educating
the students.

Staff Question Hintons True Purpose Within the School District

If schools placing students at Hinton truly expected a return back to a less
restrictive setting, steps would be written into the IEP to map out a specific
exit plan upon entry into the program. But according to the school
psychologist, instances occurred where students, having met program goals,
did not have a placement within the district to return. As a result, these
students remained at Hinton until an opening became available. Multiple
staff members reported an instance of a student qualifying for transition to a
self-contained classroom (a less restrictive educational setting), but being
stranded at Hinton because classroom space was not available in the
district. This raises questions as to whether referring schools truly intend to
receive students back. As one of the teachers put succinctly, it was a
challenge to overcome the out of sight, out of mind attitude of the school
district community (district administration and sending schools) toward
Hinton.
Since Mrs. April was a school psychologist at multiple school sites
across the district, she reflected on Hintons unique existence: That is just
the way the school exists. There is just a different involvement of the
district personnel [monitoring Hinton]. In regards to oversight, she posited
that district-wide attentiveness was not occurring at Hinton to the same
degree it did for other schools: Being in the school [coming to Hinton],
checking in, providing support. I just dont feel that its given to this
school.

312

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

One participant seemed to summarize a shared view of Hintons role

within the school district it served:
I feel like, as long as this school is maintainingas long as parents
arent filing complaints, as long as no one is getting injured to the
point that it is going to cause media attention or a lawsuitI feel
we are sort of left alone. Good or bad, I feel that is the way the
district sort of views this school. We exist because we need to. As
long as things are kind of maintained, we are sort of left to be how
we are.

Participant-Identified Changes to Improve Services to Students

The narratives provided by the staff at Hinton lead to questions such as:
What measures should be taken to ensure that programs serving students
with ED provide the most effective educational services? What can, and
should, be done to increase the likelihood that students with ED in such
settings are provided appropriate and effective services to increase the
likelihood of a return to less restrictive settings? A similar question was
posed to the participants and their insight and recommendations are worth
disseminating. Their recommendations are centered on improved
connectivity with the sending schools. Mr. Ayers, the seasoned classroom
teacher, identified one way to resolve the issue of students being
abandoned by their home schools:
What a great idea that would be if the sending school, like [for]
every student that comes here, actually had someone from the
sending school constantly monitoring their progress. Talk to them.
They would actually get a representative. What you would do is,
really bridge a very significant gap between our school and the
other school and make us more part of the community, as opposed
to being a separate entity.

Mrs. Bennett, the other participating classroom teacher, echoed this

sentiment, highlighting the importance of connectivity between schools and
its impact on students sense of self:

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

313

I think if our students felt like their previous school and previous
teachers, if they were still checking up on them, they may be like,
Oh; they do care!

In fact, since to bridge the gap meant to improve the quality of

communication and connectivity between programs by improving
consistency across educational approaches (behavioral and academic),
Hinton created their own position, transition liaison, to support students
returning to a less restrictive setting after meeting their goals. Mrs. Bennett
echoed the importance of this position, [Transition] is scary. We wanted to
know that the kids were doing well [after they left Hinton] I think if we
had a better relationship with other schools we would have smoother
transitions for our students. Mr. Albertson, the transition liaison, shared the
following about his role: The purpose of the transition liaison is to make
sure the student doesnt feel like we dropped them off and left them. To
make sure they are comfortable there, with their teachers, their counselors,
their principals, [and] their special education department.
Discussion
The primary goal of any special education intervention is to improve
student outcomes in a specific domain. Changing a students educational
setting to a more restrictive one is one such intervention. Resulting from
the growing expansion of school districts placing students with ED in
alternative educational settings, researchers have identified effective
practices to help guide policy within programs similar to Hinton (Bullock &
Gable, 2006; Flower, McDaniel & Jolivette, 2011; Neel, Cessna, Borock, &
Bechard, 2003; Simpson, Peterson & Smith, 2011). What has been
especially absent in the research literature is the perspective of individuals
who work within these programs, how collaboration (or lack thereof) with
schools impacts their perception of their professional effectiveness, and
how a fractured or inequitable relationship may negatively impact the
students placed in these programs.
This qualitative case study, an investigation of program perceptions of
an alternative school for students with ED, sought to explore such a school
from its staffs point of view. We believe that a perceived indifference to
student outcomes by the referring sending schools contributed to an

314

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

overall feeling of frustration at Hinton. The isolation of working at a school

like Hinton left many feeling disconnected from the district. This condition
brings into question the efficacy of a program like Hinton, its potential
ability to provide effective educational services for students with ED and
ultimately return students to a less restrictive educational environment.
This case study highlighted that due to (1) an uncertainty in Hintons
purpose within the district, (2) a perceived absence of connectivity with
sending schools, and (3) limited accountability and oversight, Hinton may
have become a program operating against the principles that led to its
original formation. Until further examinations of such programs and
schools are conducted, we are unable to assess whether the perspectives of
the participants in this case study are representative of staffs perception
across alternative schools for students with ED.
We acknowledge that the education of students with ED is challenging
and complex. Still, we assert these findings warrant continued examination
of schools serving students with ED, to ensure similar programs meet the
individual needs of each student, rely on research-based and socially valid
methods, and ultimately improve student outcomes. We believe it is
essential to revisit the charge made by McNulty and Roseboro (2009) for
school officials to clarify the role of alternative schools in their district and
ensure that those goals are indeed met, through whatever structure
necessary (p.424).
References
Ahearn, E. (2004). Alternative schools and students with disabilities:
Current status and emerging issues. In Project Forum at NASDSE
(pp. 1-7). Retrieved from http://nasdse.org/desktopmodules/dnnspotstore/productfiles/5_f3f85c20-ecbc-4343-b44d-3cb0dc892e2e.pdf
Anastasiou, D., Gardner R. & Michail, D. (2011). Ethnicity and
Exceptionality. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.),
Handbook of special education (pp. 745-758). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Atkins, T., Bullis, M., & Todis, B. (2005). Converging and diverging
service delivery systems in alternative education programs for
disabled and non-disabled youth involved in the juvenile justice
system. Journal of Correctional Education, 56(3), 253-285.

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

315

Becker, S. P., Paternite, C. E., Evans, S. W., Andrews, C., Christensen, O.

A., Kraan, E. M., & Weist, M. D. (2011). Eligibility, assessment, and
educational placement issues for students classified with emotional
disturbance: Federal and state-level analyses. School Mental Health,
3(1), 24-34. doi: 10.1007/s12310-010-9045-2
Billingsley, B. S., Fall, A. M., & Williams Jr, T. O. (2006). Who is teaching
students with emotional and behavioral disorders?: A profile and
comparison to other special educators. Behavioral Disorders, 31(3),
252-264.
Bradley, R., Henderson, K., & Monfore, D. A. (2004). A national
perspective on children with emotional disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 29(3), 211-223.
Bullock, L. M., & Gable, R. A. (2006). Programs for children and
adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders in the United
States: A historical overview, current perspectives, and future
directions. Preventing School Failure, 50(2), 7-13. doi:
10.3200/PSFL.50.2.7-13
Connor, D. J. & Gabel, S. L. (2013). Cripping the curriculum through
academic activism: Working toward increasing global exchanges to
reframe (dis)ability and education. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 46(1), 100118.
Cook, B. G., & Schirmer, B. R. (2003). What is special about special
education? Overview and analysis. The Journal of Special Education,
37(3), 200-205. doi: 10.1177/00224669030370031001
Emery, D., & Vandenberg, B. (2010). Special education teacher burnout
and ACT. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 119131.
Fierros, E. G., & Conroy, J. W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of
restrictiveness and race in special education. Racial Inequity in
Special Education, 39-70.
Flower, A., McDaniel, S. C., & Jolivette, K. (2011). A literature review of
research quality and effective practices in alternative education
settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(4), 489-510.
Gorney, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1993). Students with disabilities use of
various options to access alternative schools and area learning
centers. Special Services in the Schools, 7(1), 125-143.

316

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

Hayling, C. C., Cook, C., Gresham, F. M., State, T., & Kern, L. (2008). An
analysis of the status and stability of the behaviors of students with
emotional and behavioral difficulties. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 17(1), 24-42. doi: 10.1007/s10864-007-9059-5
Hoge, M. R., Liaupsin, C. J., Umbreit, J., & Ferro, J. B. (2012). Examining
placement considerations for students with emotional disturbance
across three alternative schools. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,
24(4), 218-226. doi: 10.1177/1044207312461672
Houchins, D. E., Shippen, M. E., McKeand, K., Viel-Ruma, K., Jolivette,
K., & Guarino, A. J. (2010). Juvenile justice teachers' job
satisfaction: A comparison of teachers in three states. Education and
Treatment of Children, 33(4), 623-646. doi: 10.1353/etc.2010.0000
Individuals with Disabilies Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 (2004).
Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2013). Characteristics of emotional
and behavioral disorders in children and youth. (10th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Kim, J. H., & Taylor, K. A. (2008). Rethinking alternative education to
break the cycle of educational inequality and inequity. The Journal of
Educational Research, 101(4), 207-219. doi:
10.3200/JOER.101.4.207-219
Lakin, B. L., Leon, S. C., & Miller, S. A. (2008). Predictors of burnout in
children's residential treatment center staff. Residential Treatment for
Children & Youth, 25(3), 249-270. doi:
10.1080/08865710802429697
Landrum, T., Katsiyannis, A., & Archwamety, T. (2004). An analysis of
placement and exit patterns of students with emotional or behavioral
disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 140-153.
Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., Little, M. A., & Cooley, C. (2005a). Academic,
social, and behavioral profiles of students with emotional and
behavioral disorders educated in self-contained classrooms and selfcontained schools: Part IAre they more alike than different?
Behavioral Disorders, 30, 349361.
Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., Little, M. A., & Cooley, C. (2005b). Students
educated in self-contained classes and self-contained schools: Part
IIHow do they progress over time? Behavioral Disorders, 30, 363
374.

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

317

Lange, C. M., & Sletten, S. J. (2002). Alternative education: A brief history

and research synthesis. Alexandria, VA: National Association of
State Directors of Special Education.
Lehr, C. A., & Lange, C. M. (2003a). Alternative schools and the students
they serve: Perceptions of state directors of special education. Policy
Research Brief, 14(1), 1-12.
Lehr, C. A., & Lange, C. M. (2003b). Alternative schools serving students
with and without disabilities: What are the current issues and
challenges?. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 59-65.
Lehr, C. A., Tan, C. S., & Ysseldyke, J. (2009). Alternative schools: A
synthesis of state-level policy and research. Remedial and Special
Education, 30(1), 19-32. doi: 10.1177/0741932508315645
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research (5th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Mattison, R. E., & Schneider, J. (2009). First-year effectiveness on school
functioning of a self-contained ED middle school. Behavioral
Disorders, 34, 60-71.
Mattison, R. E. (2011). Comparison of students classified ED in selfcontained classrooms and a self-contained school. Education &
Treatment of Children, 34, 15-33.
McNulty, C. P. & Roseboro, D. L. (2009). Im not really that bad:
Alternative school students, stigma, and identity politics. Equity &
Excellence in Education 42(4), 412427. doi:
10.1080/10665680903266520
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative
approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Neel, R. S., Cessna, K. K., Borock, J., & Bechard, S. (2003). Quality
program indicators for children with emotional and behavior
disorders. Beyond Behavior, 3-9.
Osher, D., Cartledge, G., Oswald, D., Artiles, A. J., & Coutinho, M. (2004).
Issues of cultural and linguistic competency and disproportionate
representation. In R. Rutherford, M. Quinn, & S. Mather (Eds.),
Handbook of research in behavioral disorders (pp. 5477). New
York: Guilford Publications.
Quinn, M. M., Poirier, J. M., Faller, S. E., Gable, R. A., & Tonelson, S. W.
(2006). An examination of school climate in effective alternative
programs. Preventing School Failure, 51(1), 11-17.

318

Hoge & Rubistein-Avila Out of Sight Out of Mind

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for

researchers in education and the social sciences. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Simpson, R. L., Peterson, R. L., & Smith, C. R. (2011). Critical educational
program components for students with emotional and behavioral
disorders: Science, policy, and practice. Remedial and Special
Education, 32(3), 230-242. doi: 10.1177/0741932510361269
Sitlington, P. L., & Neubert, D. A. (2004). Preparing youths with emotional
or behavioral disorders for transition to adult life: Can it be done
within the standards-based reform movement?. Behavioral
Disorders, 29(3), 279-288.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K.,
Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. G. (2008). Achieving equity in special
education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional
Children, 74(3), 264-288. doi: 10.1177/001440290807400301
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 86 - 109). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tobin, T., & Sprague, J. (1999). Alternative education programs for at-risk
youth: Issues, best practice, and recommendations. Oregon School
Study Council Bulletin, 42(4).
Turton, A. M., Umbreit, J., & Mathur, S. R. (2011). Systematic functionbased intervention for adolescents with emotional and behavioral
disorders in an alternative setting: Broadening the context.
Behavioral Disorders, 36, 117-128.
Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Epstein, M. H., & Sumi, W. C.
(2005). The children and youth we serve: A national picture of the
characteristics of students with emotional disturbances receiving
special education. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
13(2), 79-96. doi: 10.1177/10634266050130020201
Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior
in school: Evidence-based practices. Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3)

319

Matthew Hoge is Assistant Professor at Deaprtment of Special Education

and Literacy Studies at Western Michigan University, United States of
America. ORCID id: 0000-0001-9036-0971
Eliane Rubinstein-Avila is associate Professor at the Department of
Teaching, Learning & Sociocultural Studies at University of Arizon, United
States of America. ORCID id: 0000-0003-3313-0875
Contact Address: Special Education & Literacy Studies, Western
Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI: United States of America. Email:
[email protected]