Journal of K-12 Educational Research 65 campus, and recidivists’ preference for the DAEP. The conformity signaled the first emergent theme. None of the contributing factors were considered external. The consensus codes fall under internal and organizational orientation. Simply put, participants believed that factors that increased the likelihood of repeat placements were the shared responsibility among the student, home campus administrators, and DAEP administrators. The exclusion of external factors suggests that elements beyond the reach of students and their schools may be invalid. After the qualitative data was analyzed comprehensively, the researcher examined participant responses according to their campus type since distinctions were more evident using that descriptor. The tendency to attribute recidivism risk factors based on internal, external, and organizational orientations was one of the most pronounced and significant emergent themes. Since there were noteworthy differences between the responses of home campus administrators and the expert panelists, the analysis was conducted separately. Emergent Themes for Home Campus Administrators Home campus administrators identified a wide range of factors that contribute to recidivism risk. The responses included factors with external, internal, and organizational orientations. There were certain high frequency factors that home campus administrators acknowledged that were not confirmed by the expert panel. Those factors include a lack of intensive counseling, a lack of parental support/ attention, student resistance to change, bad influences surrounding the student, and teenage immaturity. All of those factors were internal or external-oriented. In other words, the factors that Grades 9-10 home campus administrators and senior high home campus administrators mentioned excluded those factors that are within the campus administrators’ realm of influence. Since several home campus administrators admitted that they had not done enough to address repeated placement during the interview, the idea of recidivism risk evolved into a conundrum. When recidivism is not addressed at the campus level, it can be argued that the lack of action and intervention may contribute to increased recidivism. When home campus administrators admitted to a lack of intervention for potential recidivists at their campus, it was never followed by an admission of responsibility when asked about contributing factors. Emergent Themes for the Expert Panel The expert panel provided verification of the home campus administrators’ responses through triangulation. The DAEP administrators confirmed seven factors that at least one home campus administrator identified. Most of the confirmed factors were also consensus factors with the exception of racial mismatch leading to implicit bias and students labeled as “emotionally disturbed” who receive special education services. These factors were not as valid as the consensus factors since there was not representation from every campus type; however, they require consideration and further investigation. The major distinction between the factors identified by home campus administrators and DAEP administrators was the orientation. DAEP administrators did not cite any external factors. The expert panel was more inclined to pinpoint systemic factors that increased a student’s risk for repeated placement. From implicit bias to campus culture, DAEP administrators identified factors that could not be excused by a student’s home life, lack of parental involvement, or social circle. Furthermore, the organizational-oriented risk factors were joined with plans to address the issues within their sphere of influence. The expert panel seemed to serve as a space to brainstorm ways to combat recidivism, using the identified risk factors to prompt solution-oriented discussion on the topic. Upon further analysis of the data, another theme emerged from the isolation of factors that were only mentioned by DAEP administrators. The factors that were defined by DAEP administrators and not their home campus colleagues were the lack of restorative practices at the home campus, the lack of home campus follow-through on individual transition plans when students return to the home campus, and the size of the home campus. Each of these factors highlight a subtle theme: a homecampus limitation. The perspective of the expert panel was necessary because it may have exposed factors that home
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODc4ODgx