Educational Equity for Street Youth: Examining Street Schools through the Lense of Rightful Presence

Valuing the Lived Experiences and Individual Strengths of Youth

The interviewees and the documents stressed the importance of valuing the youths as whole people, with powerful strengths grounded in their lived experiences. A critical aspect of this view was the importance of unconditionally accepting them and their life situations, without judgment or prejudice. In contrast to the often deficit-oriented way society views street adolescents, the interviews and the documents demonstrated “a high level of awareness” (Lena, 16 ⁶ ) of the agency and strengths that youths have, both traditional and nontraditional. For instance, the fact that they take schooling into their own hands despite negative educational experiences and difficult life situations, and even when their views of education differ from normative practice, was viewed by educators as an expression of agency. This awareness of agency is seen in the following quote, where Joel, an educator, equated attending street schools as a willingness to fight a system that works against them: “Their greatest strength is that they are visiting our street school. That shows that they are willing to fight” (Joel, 60).

Interviewees described their students as “smart” (Lena, 34), “intelligent” (Susanna, 57), “motivated by their own questions” (Peter, 48) to learn and achieve, further demonstrating their strengths-based perspective. Educators described youths’ failure to thrive in regular school settings as consequence of how the “imperfections” (Jim, 32) of the regular school system work together with youths’ “difficult life circumstances.” While they uplift the youths’ strengths, they also acknowledge that some youths are “difficult to deal with” because of their “destructive behavior” (Susanna, 57). However, educators tried to understand students’ behavior in holistic ways and setting goals from a humanizing perspective. They, for example, were satisfied when students were able to simply rest at school, as, from their experience, becoming more grounded in the school space is often the first step to resuming schooling. This approach can be found in the story Susanna, a school leader, told us about a young person:

We allowed him to sleep on our sofa. This gave him the feeling that he was accepted, and he slowly opened up. We provided a lot of support. As a result, he became more stable and was able to come more often and to work on educational content. (Susanna, 57)

Consequently, interviewees described the importance of welcoming and trusting the whole student even if this meant taking extra time. This way, more than one young person “blossomed” (Susanna, 57), for example, because they rediscover their strengths.

Yousef, another educator, described the youths as having many strengths, while viewing “gaps” in traditional school knowledge as opportunities for new questions and fascination to arise: “They have plenty of strengths. The knowledge gaps leave room for questions and fascination. Also, their life experiences and prior knowledge allows them other perspectives on topics” (Yousef, 53). While many educators from regular schools may perceive gaps in youths’ learning as missed knowledge, Yousef made clear the power and importance of lived experience—in this case, the ability to be easily fascinated, and to see questions from novel perspectives. In fact, most interviewees pointed out that adolescents’ prior experiences are valuable in the classroom and should be incorporated even when those experiences do not clearly map onto academic content.

Meeting Students at Eye-Level

Another cornerstone of the educational approach is what interviewees described as educator-youth interactions taking place at “eye-level.” In street schools, eye-level—a German metaphor—means that educators and youth work together on more equal terms, with shared power. This kind of power-sharing was not only described as distributing who has the authority to make decisions, but rather is rooted in a fundamental acceptance of the other as fully human with important contributions, as discussed above. Educators emphasized not standing above the youths because of their subject-specific knowledge and other school sanctioned forms of authority. Lena explained her role as a “learning companion”:

You have to deal with each other as equals because the students bring a lot of life experience. They have mastered many things that other people don’t even know exist. That deserves appreciation. That’s why you, as a teacher, shouldn’t present yourself as the great savior. . . . You work together with them and simply figure out how you can make a difference. The term ‘learning companion’ is quite fitting since you just accompany the youths on their way. (Lena, 30)

This quote reveals how Lena valued the knowledge that youth have because of their experiences—forms of knowledge educators do not have but that are highly meaningful in learning. Rather than maintaining traditional teacher-student roles, the interviewees stressed how they are trying to disrupt these normative hierarchical structures by replacing them with mutual appreciation and respect.

Furthermore, according to the interviews, educators eschewed traditional student-teacher roles with implicit hierarchies in favor of being co-learners. That is, educators view the youths as equals with different but equally worthy prior experiences. For example, one street school’s website stated that “equality, together with diversity, represents the success factor” (W10, 22) for them. These teacher-student roles grounded in “eye-level” and in the appreciation of youths’ life experiences underpin this co-learning stance—as illustrated in the following interview quote:

Only in a few other educational settings have I been able to learn as much from the students as I have in the street school. It, as corny as it may sound, really is a give and take. It’s really a very eye-to-eye situation. (Jim, 52)

Jim described how working with youths at eye-level allowed educators and youths to learn from each other in a “give-and-take.” His stance was shared widely among the interviewees, with many pointing out that this kind of power-sharing is “very important,” grounded in “people valu[ing] and respect[ing] each other“ (Lena, 30), and in seeing youths as experts of their own lives and learning processes. As Sönke, a school leader, stated, it “requires an acceptance of the other person as the only expert on personal matters” (Sönke, 22). Consequently, in street schools, the staff supports, encourages, and trusts the youth to decide on their own how and when they want to learn.

According to the interviewees, street schools may constitute the first environment in the educational lives of street youth where they are treated with respect. The different nature of this approach is reflected in how some street schools reject applications from teachers who have previously taught in regular schools. As Lena explained, “teachers who come from regular schools, can have problems with this [(approach)], because they are used to something completely different” (Lena, 38). Lena reveals the deep importance of meeting students at eye-level, noting that educators with experience in regular schools often struggle to relinquish the authority inherent in the teacher’s role and to perceive youths as capable of planning their own learning processes.

Providing a Safe Harbor for Youth

The interviewees and documents stated that the basis for every action in the street schools is building unconditional trust in youths. This trust is essential in fostering an atmosphere of safety, which interviewees viewed as a prerequisite for learning. To feel safe, educators explained, youths must be valued as whole people—even if their past or present differs from that of the educator and of traditional social norms. According to the educators, safety includes being able to express wants and needs without fear, to ask questions without being laughed at, and to make mistakes. One street school’s website portended this connection between relationship-building, missing prejudices, and learning:

The most important prerequisite is to be able to engage with the students’ lifeworld and to meet them openly and without prejudices. Only through the development of sustainable and reliable relationships can learning and working together succeed in our street school. (W2, 20)

To create this atmosphere of safety, interviewees believed that youths need opportunities to build trust with the staff and with their classmates through ongoing, active relationship work. As the school leader Margot explained: “One prerequisite for our work is trust and intentional relationship building. That is the basis for working with a group like our students are. This does not happen overnight. It takes plenty of time” (Margot, 17). Margot furthermore emphasized the importance of using school time to establish and build relationships. Part of this relationship work is that educators not only show interest in the learning processes but also in the youths’ life stories and share parts of their own lives with them, again reflecting the eye-level, give-and-take emphasized earlier. Educators also described using unconventional and creative approaches to spending time together. For example, they reported going for walks or drinking coffee together with youths during/after class. While interviewees acknowledged relationship work is filled with tensions, maintaining relationship work and seeking to understand the youths’ perspectives was named essential: “We keep relationships just like parents do. Even if children mess up, parents will still say, ‘I love you and I will always take care of you.’ And that’s our mantra. We maintain relationships, too” (Bernd, 52). The interviewees explained how these experiences are often in stark contrast to youths’ prior school experiences. Thus, the youths in street schools often need to be convinced that educators are authentic and trustworthy; that they are on their side and will not push them away if they “misbehave.” The eye-level relationships and a stance of trust in favor of the youth are what educators believed help them to see and interpret youths’ actions and behaviors in supportive ways. As Manuela, a school leader, described: “Of course, many behaviors, such as ‘I’m not up for it,’ can also mean: ‘I’m not up for it because I don’t understand it right now’” (Manuela, 46).

Additionally, according to the interviews and documents, street schools actively promote positive group cohesion and mutual trust, for example, through team-building activities. In her interview, Johanna described a pivotal conversation she had with one youth. In the following quote Johanna explained that such a group feeling represents a strong contrast to previous school experiences and a valuable resource for the youths:

A participant once told me that every student was a misfit in their former classes. But in the street school, they have formed a class of misfits—that no one is a misfit anymore. That’s the best thing. It enables them to work together much better. (Johanna, 54)

To ensure this atmosphere of safety, interviewees emphasized that any form of violence, exclusion, discrimination, and racism is unwelcomed in street schools. In contrast to the youths’ experiences in regular schools, educators want their schools to become a permanent place of refuge, as Lena explained, “the school itself should be a place of refuge to help over certain times” (Lena, 92).

The interviewees emphasized that the youths in their schools are never given up on. They stressed how they always seek new and creative ways of providing support and standing by the youths’ side—particularly because some youths lack a trusted confidant or a space to “unwind.” Educators expressed the wish to show them that—even if their families or other institutions no longer want them—they are welcome. This includes an optimistic view of the youths’ futures and a belief that they will realize their goals—regardless of their pasts or recent setbacks: “Successes will come in any case. However, the path to success often consists of small steps. Setbacks are always part of the process” (W2, 20).

Making Visible, Critiquing, and Seeing Dehumanizing Educational Structures as Mutable

Twelve interviewees pointed out how regular schooling is often incompatible with youths’ circumstances and learning needs. Joel stated succinctly: “The youth don’t drop out of school for no reason. . . . The formal education system is simply too static” (Joel, 16). In explaining why regular schools are incompatible, interviewees described how several regular schooling structures dehumanize street youth, contribute to their trauma, and cause further harm. Structures mentioned included attendance policies, structure of schooltime, rigid regulations, mandatory learning groups, and insufficient support for their specific needs. Interviewees described how these structures are often intertwined, exacerbating the harm that youths experience.

Interviewees emphasized the importance of recognizing how school structures contribute to youths being pushed out of school and thus being prevented from reaching their potential. Educators explained that they encounter students who drop out because of rigid school hours that do not account for their challenges, such as finding food or places to sleep and study. As Jim, an educator, described, “you need to know why our students are in this situation” (Jim, 32) and

It is important, when you work as an educator in a street school, to understand that it is not difficult life circumstances—they also play a role—but rather structural problems of the school system that led to the students’ dropout. These structures need change. (Jim, 32)

Seven interviewees discussed the challenges faced by the rigidity of regular schools’ structures. See how the street school leader Bernd critiqued the German attendance policy and its consequences:

We don’t use these harmful means [for truancy] of the school authorities: fines, hours of community service, a week of trial detention for the students. We are not subject to these legal requirements, and we also reject them. . . . These sanctions to get students out of truancy and into school show how helpless the system is. (Bernd, 38)

Bernd showed how he takes risks by rejecting the German policy to provide more humanizing policies for their students.

Interviewees also referred to the exclusion the youths experience in regular schools because of these rigid structures leading to pushouts/dropouts.

In street schools, there should be . . . the possibility to structure your school day as you want to. Coming and going as you please, because that’s one reason why students often stop going to school—because of these strict rules. (Jim, 14)

The way “these strict rules” exclude students becomes more evident in Lena’s quote:

The problem with schools is that they often follow a certain concept that sometimes cannot be integrated into the lives of young people. For example, certain school hours or dress codes; that’s where it starts to no longer fit into their lives. (Lena, 16)

Regular schooling with its rigid structures, interviewees explained, do not always align with the circumstances a life in unstable housing conditions may bring. Consequently, rules like fixed “school hours” push street students out of the regular school system.

Further, both interviewees and documents pointed out that even when alternative educational opportunities are available, they may not be suitable for the youth with their specific educational needs. They cited many examples, including long waiting times to get into alternative schools, high tuition, inflexible school schedules, and high prerequisites for participation. The lack of alternatives was criticized by Susanna, a school leader:

I’ve been doing this for decades now, and it doesn’t stop that youths drop out of school at similar ages, as different as individual problems are. That’s why we need to develop solutions together. (Susanna, 23)

Interviewees described a deep desire to offer something different from regular education. They viewed street schools as a counter-design that works in radically needs-oriented ways to respond to the inequalities created by the regular schooling system. Educators and school policy documents viewed educational structures as flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of learners, especially when those structures dehumanize youth, and/or prevent their well-being.

First, part of seeing structures flexible is a willingness to question and disrupt routine structures.

The biggest challenge is not to fall into a routine. Not into a: “We’ve done it this way for the last three years; it works great this way.” But rather, every time there are new students, we have to rethink: “How can we do this? How can we adapt this?” Accordingly, a great deal of flexibility must be maintained. (Joel, 34)

Because of their awareness of how the structures of the regular school system actively excluded their youth, educators reject compulsory attendance. Instead, they view students as capable to decide when they are able to attend school or not, reflecting the eye-level-approach again. While educators encourage the youth to be present as often as possible, they also recognize that youth may miss school or be late for various reasons, such as a need to care for their mental health or to find new sleeping places. This can be seen in the following quote of a street school’s mission statement: “Non-attendance at short notice is not questioned but recognized as part of the students’ lives” (M7, 19).

While educators suggested that non-compulsory attendance is crucial to a youth feeling welcomed and safe, a consequence of this voluntary participation is the often-low attendance rates of street schools, which can be as low as 50%. One educator, Yousef, described this challenge as follows:

We always try, in consultation with students, to increase their attendance . . .. Of course, they can also stay at home after calling in. But because our rules are relatively unconstrained—and they know this—it is sometimes difficult to build up and maintain attendance. (Yousef, 31)

Therefore, most street schools tend to make individual arrangements with youths about their attendance, based on what the young people can accomplish in their circumstances. For example, when youth are absent for an extended period, interviewees described reaching out personally and encouraging them to attend again, without consequence, reflecting both the voluntary participation and a desire for humanizing relationships.

Second, disrupting routine practice involves not just challenging normative practices, such as compulsory attendance, but also engaging in new practices that create opportunities for the youth. Consider the structural feature of some street schools of flexible school hours. Some schools modify their school hours to meet the students’ needs and their sometimes unpredictable life situations. As Sönke explained, “we don’t check attendance, and we let everyone know that we don’t do so. Everybody can come when they want” (Sönke, 59).

Furthermore, flexible school hours make ongoing (re)entry possible. Hence, street schools also allow for extended absences, such as when youth are participating in therapy, or when their circumstances become too unstable for schooling. As explained on one website:

Once active participation has ended, it can be resumed at any time after a clarifying conversation and consideration of the changed situation. Based on our experience, there will be some participants who will only succeed in passing the final examination after several re-starts. (W3, 91)

Trouble-free reentry without barriers is critical to fostering youths’ chances to educationally succeed in street schools. The interviewees explained how street schools are aware that the educational paths of youths are not always straightforward in a traditional sense—and that this can be reflected in attendance patterns as well as youths’ desires and views for their futures.

Third, educators viewed instruction itself as a key flexible structure. As Peter explained: “You have to think about teaching more freely. Teaching should not just mean that one distributes tasks and operationalizes every step” (Peter, 54). Educators described constantly asking themselves—and the students—whether the current setting meets their needs:

Flexibility is very important. Both regarding the instruction and regarding the teaching setting. If an educator says: “I need a blackboard, and people should sit in front of me.” That will not work. The educator rather has to be open: “The person, I’m working with right now, wants to work in the garden. How can I use this?” (Philipp, 48)

Sönke described this flexibility in instruction as supporting youths in leading a “self-determined life” and achieving goals they have set themselves through voluntary and not forced learning.

Awareness of the Youths’ Needs for Making Learning Desirable/Possible

There were several ways interviewees described engaging and combining flexible structures in a needs-based way that centered youths’ desires and futures, including fostering individualized and differentiated instruction, learned-centered approaches, small learning communities, and after school and community learning opportunities and spaces. Consider the example provided by Yousef who explained how they worked with students’ unique situations, such as one young woman who was both a mother of a child and unhoused. He described her “drive to take care of myself and my child” and how they worked closely with her, tailoring lessons to her schedule and interests, further stating: “This person graduated with a lot of support from us . . .. Because of our individual learning arrangement, she could work through the learning materials quite well” (Yousef, 65). Yousef further revealed that the young woman not only completed the high school diploma but also started studying social work at a university.

Individualized instruction was described by educators through constantly adapting the pace of instruction, the duration of learning phases, providing options to take breaks independently, the intensity of supervision, and the focal content. Observe how the educator Philipp described adapting biology lessons when discussing making learning relevant:

We had a student who was pregnant as a teen. She heard about reproductive biology for the first time in our biology lesson. Our English teacher did the biology lessons with her. . .. She took a book and sat down with the book and the student. The student then did all the learning on her own. The English teacher only had to speak about her own pregnancy. As soon as you find the topic, which can be difficult sometimes, it works well. (Philipp, 72)

As Gunter, a school leader, explained, such an adaptation is in stark contrast to instruction in regular schools, which often fail to meet the learning needs of youth:

Many didn’t fail at school because of their difficult life circumstances that led to school becoming secondary. Rather, school struggles with the burden of having to present content in 45 minutes for 30 people in a way that everyone can learn. . . . Individuals will always come up short. (Gunter, 30)

Interviewees and documents emphasized that educators adapt content by considering the needs and wants of the youth, or as one educator explained, “school should be a place where you learn what you need to achieve what you want” (Sönke, 46).

Interviewees also described the importance of fostering small learning communities among their students, working to negate the trauma that youth described experiencing in large group contexts. Consider the following quote that shows how the youths’ backgrounds are taken into consideration:

You have to meet people where they are. They have had different experiences. Trauma and addiction are very big issues. You can’t work in larger groups. . . . You need a lot of educators to allow for very small groups or one-on-one teaching. (Stefan, 11)

This school leader, Stefan, described the importance of ongoing relationship work and small groups as an answer to students’ needs and their difficult (educational) pasts. He also highlighted how they practice flexibility in instruction to support students with traumatic experiences.

Holistic Support and Futuring as Integral Part to Learning Processes

Collectively flexible structures are meant to shift the very purposes and goals of schooling to support youth in imagining and working toward their own desired futures. Sönke explained how they helped a youth who wanted to become a YouTuber. They showed him how to shoot and edit videos and how to reach a wide audience. In addition, the street schools support the youths by answering practical questions: How can I go to university? What degree do I need to get a certain job? How do I get internships? In this way, young people can find their way to realize possible life prospects.

Additionally, interviewees described concerns for youths’ opportunities and access to resources for safe sleeping, food, and caring relationships, and how each of these affect students’ possibilities for studying. Educators talked about being responsive to youths’ needs as a process that extended beyond the classroom. Crucial to this holistic approach is the belief that schools must offer more than instruction: “It is difficult to study when I don’t know what I’m going to eat tonight. That’s why every participant receives support and counseling through social workers. Also, we make sure that their livelihood is secured” (Louis, 59). Interviewees pointed out that without basic needs secured, learning may not be possible. Therefore, they take care of any need that hinders students from participating physically and mentally. In contrast to regular German schools, many street schools provide free meals. Gunter, a school leader, said that they even go grocery shopping with individuals if necessary. Furthermore, the interviews showed that some street schools offer individuals a sofa to sleep if they were unable to sleep the previous night.

By providing additional services, street schools seek to ensure that a lack of resources due to the unstable housing situation does not negatively impact the youths’ learning opportunities and therefore their prospects. For example, they provide rooms in the school for studying and lockers for storing personal items, resources not always provided in regular German schools. Additionally, social workers ensure that the youths receive support for the challenges associated with their unstable living situations, so that they can focus on realizing their goals: “We want to enable the students to live their lives independently” (Manuela, 36).

The interviews and documents indicated the social workers’ boundless commitment to support the youths. For example, social workers at one street school are available around the clock, and at another street school, youths, if necessary, are visited at home. Furthermore, social workers continue to accompany the youths after graduation to support them in their transitions to vocational trainings or jobs.

Taking Risks to Stand with Youth

The interviewees showed that street schools, by taking a stand to make schooling more humanizing, subject themselves and their schools to risk. For example, even though many street schools already face financial challenges due to funding policies of the state, refusing to mandate guidelines, such as compulsory attendance, can further limit their access to state funds.

Sometimes, the question comes up: “Why don’t you try to certify your school? Then you could claim funds from the employment agency.” But as soon as our school is certified, we would be subject to certain guidelines. And that takes away the freedom to work flexible and unbureaucratically. (Fabian, 86)

In some cases, street schools have proffered agreements with local authorities to continue to receive funding while not enforcing compulsory attendance. However, these agreements, as Bruno explained, mandate the disclosure of attendance records, limiting youths’ privacy. This results in public funding agencies threatening to cut funding due to the often-low attendance rates:

The agencies that finance us have access to the attendance lists. If too few students are present, then cuts can be made. Then they say: “You say you have about 10 to 15 students. But only three have been there regularly for months. You don’t need so much funding.” (Bruno, 36)

This problem shows that agencies are often not aware of the (educational) challenges that unstable housing situations create and the extent to which rigid structures can have marginalizing effects. School leaders emphasized that they have to keep explaining to public offices the particularities of their students.

Additionally, one school leader, Stefan, noted that because public funding is typically provided only for students under the age of 21, they have to limit attendance to students who meet the age cut off, limiting their reach. Interviewees described these financial challenges as a constant struggle for survival that involves uncertainty:

One challenge is funding. That is a constant battle. You can never say: “Yes, that’s secured now.” Sometimes there is funding for a whole school year, sometimes only for a few months. And then you have to find new solutions. We have to keep looking for supporters. We approach everyone we hope will support us financially, such as companies and foundations. It is about our survival. (Amanda, 27)

Street school educators and leaders have become resourceful in filling the resource gaps imposed by the system. They rely on donations from local businesses and individuals to address budgetary challenges imposed by the system. They also draw from personal and professional networks, such as psychologists, university faculty, or local companies, to provide support. Furthermore, educators mentioned that they use their own money to buy learning materials.

Bumping into the Constraints of the (Educational) System

Another challenge is rooted in the marginalized position of street schools in the broader German education system. Apart from one school, the street schools do not have the legal status—or the associated rights—of a state-recognized school. This leaves street schools, as interviewees elucidated, with limited agency in relation to funding and state requirements. For example, street schools are not officially allowed to accept students who are still subject to compulsory education. ⁷ However, some street schools found ways to make exceptions. One educator explained how they rely on caseworkers in administrative bodies to provide formal support for youth who wish to attend street schools:

There are cooperative caseworkers who like our school. For example, we have a student who is too young to participate, still has to go to a regular school. And the caseworker says, “If he participates voluntarily at your school, that’s fine with me.” Then there is the opposite where social welfare payments are cut because our students don’t go to a regular school. (Philipp, 38)

As this quote also shows, full-aged youths who obtain unemployment benefits may be subject to financial retribution if they participate in street schools, since caseworkers in job centers sometimes do not accept street schools as substitutes to compulsory work readiness programs. This further highlights how existing public structures and the missing status as a state-recognized school contribute to the marginalized position of street schools and their students.

Further, while street schools support students to graduate, they have no say in the requirements for meeting a state-endorsed diploma. In Germany, all students from non-state-recognized schools are required to pass a final examination, the so-called non-student examination, whose content varies from state to state, to receive an endorsed diploma. This presents significant challenges for both educators and youth who have built educational relationships at eye-level and follow student interests in developing lessons. Educators described having to find creative ways to connect student interests to mandated content. Johanna captured the view of many of the interviewees when she explained how she leverages students’ interest and experiences to build lessons related to required content in Biology. She explained that she draws from the places where youth live and spend their time to design meaningful learning experiences:

I have carried out excursions with them regarding the topic ecosystems in a way that is playful and connected to their own lives. In one excursion, I gave them the following assignment: Introduce me to the ecosystem of the city. What parts of cities are there that meet the definition of an ecosystem? That way they can relate the content to their life. (Johanna, 14)

Furthermore, due to the missing public accreditation, street schools are not allowed to administer state exams. This means, as Jonathan explained, that the sometimes traumatized youths are forced to go back to a regular school—usually a partnering high school—to sit for the exam.

A big challenge is that the exams are taking place at regular schools and are conducted by teachers who embody exactly why our students left regular schools. . . . And this thought: “I have to take the exam. I have to go back to a real school.” That alone is difficult for many. (Jonathan, 76)

There are only isolated indications in the interviews and the documents of how street schools deal with this challenge. For example, educators from individual street schools said that they accompany their students to the examination schools. One exception can be found in the only street school that is publicly accredited. Here, the educators, in cooperation with the local education authority, are allowed to administer the exams themselves on site, without having to cooperate with an external school. Furthermore, according to the interviewees, the partnering schools rarely understand the youths’ circumstances and educational needs. Some partnering schools assume that every student has all the necessary work materials, for example a computer, for final exams. Here, street school educators described repeatedly taking on a mediating role and educating these schools.

Lastly, some students find the more open approach of street schools challenging as they are used to highly structured schools. One school leader, Louis, explained that a need-based approach meant being aware of the students’ orientation to schooling, and how their approach affects them:

Not every young person likes it here. This voluntariness, this community and openness. I’ve had people here in the taster course who said, “I need people to kick my ass. I need grades. . . . I need someone to tell me if I’m late, I will get punished.” (Louis, 67)

While school leaders and educators may reject certain regular school structures to be responsive to students’ needs, the quote above shows that these new structures do not always meet the needs of every youth. The interviews left unanswered the question of whether these young people not being reached by the street schools are finding what they need in other (alternative) schools.