Introduction

Education and political discourses prioritise student retention and Year 12 or equivalent attainment as important prerequisites for young people’s future workforce participation, economic prosperity and general sense of social connectedness and wellbeing. In Australia, for example, the National Youth Participation Requirement, requires all young Australians under the age of 17 to engage in education, training and/or employment (Council of Australian Governments, 2009). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the law stipulates that all young people must engage in training or education until 18 years of age (UK Government Department for Education, 2016). Scholarly literature demonstrates correlations between high levels of academic attainment and increased physical and mental health, greater workforce participation and economic independence, improved family relationships and social connections and greater life satisfaction (see for example, Hernandez, 2016; Powdthavee et al., 2015; Zimmerman et al., 2015). Considered from a macro-economic perspective, a country’s productivity and political, economic and social stability are enhanced by a well-educated citizenry (Coelli, 2015; Moretti, 2004; Shiplett et al., 2011). Therefore, the benefits of education for individuals, families, communities and society create a strong argument for supporting all young people to engage in formal learning.

Recently, education discourse has been influenced by mounting concerns about student disengagement. Student engagement is a multifaceted phenomenon comprising a behavioural, affective and cognitive dimension (Fredricks et al., 2004; Jimerson et al., 2003). Behavioural engagement includes active participation in the classroom and other school-related activities. Affective engagement refers to positive feelings towards learning, teachers and peers. Cognitive engagement includes processes such as attention, motivation and the synthesis of information (Fredricks et al., 2004; Sinatra et al., 2015). However, this distinction is somewhat arbitrary, because the dimensions overlap and problems in one area can impact others in complex ways (Theron et al., 2022). In practice, student disengagement is observed as withdrawal, absenteeism, low participation and disciplinary problems (Hancock & Zubrick, 2015). This narrow focus on behavioural aspects of disengagement risks missing a considerable number of students who ‘sit in classrooms, passively cooperating, even responding positively, but waiting for the bell’ (Holdsworth, 2004, as cited in Te Riele, 2007, p. 64). They too, are not well served by mainstream schooling, even though they do not actively rebel against it.

According to recent statistics, approximately 20% of young Australians leave school prior to completing Year 12, with retention rates decreasing steadily since 2020. Amongst Indigenous students, this figure rises to 44% (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024). A report compiled by Goss et al. (2017) for the Grattan Institute suggests that as many as 40% of Australian school students are disengaged from classroom learning and, as a consequence, are falling one to two years behind their peers. In a Gallup study in the United States, 56% of high school students reported feelings of disengagement at school (Busteed, 2013; Oscar, 2017). Concerns in relation to student disengagement from formal learning have also been reported in New Zealand, Canada and European countries (see for example,Assmann & Broschinski, 2021; Browne, 2019; Bruce, 2018; Uppal, 2017). In the context of the established correlations between poor academic achievement and compromised individual life opportunities and outcomes, these concerns are justified and pressing.

Certain circumstances and contexts place students at a heightened risk of having adverse school experiences and education outcomes. These factors include living in families with a low socio-economic status, identifying as Indigenous, having a culturally and linguistically diverse background, residing in a rural area, having a learning disability and living in out-of-home care (Assmann & Broschinski, 2021; McFarland et al., 2019; Murray et al., 2004; Tilbury, 2010). Moreover, poor educational outcomes tend to be concentrated in areas affected by poverty and social problems, making young people’s postcode a strong predictor of their academic success (Sherwood, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2012). Despite ongoing rhetorical commitments by governments and education departments to promote social mobility via improved education outcomes for marginalised and vulnerable students, the educational attainment of people with a low socio-economic background is markedly below the national average (Bonnor & Shepherd, 2016; Commonwealth of Australia, 2009; Deloitte Access Economics, 2019). They are less likely to attend preschool programs, more likely to have developmental delays on school entry, less likely to complete Grade 12 and less likely to pursue and attain post-school qualifications (Lamb et al., 2020). This points to shortcomings in mainstream schools’ and the education system’s capacity to effectively respond to the specific learning needs of marginalised students.

The prevailing concept of educational disengagement introduced thus far is distinct from an alternative, emerging discourse which centres on the notion of disenfranchisement. This matters because terms used to describe young people’s experiences of disconnection from school carry with them implicit meanings, assumptions and consequences (Grandin, 2008). Presenting students as disengaged assumes that young people actively and consciously withdraw from an educational process that is right and appropriate for them, thus putting the responsibility to change and re-engage firmly in their corner (Grandin, 2008; Howell, 2023). Conversely, students who are disenfranchised have been alienated and marginalised by an education system that delivers a one-size-fits-all pedagogy that does not promote their strengths or meet their needs (Mills & McGregor, 2014; Zyngier, 2008). This presents a paradigmatic shift away from blaming and trying to fix students, and puts the onus to change and be more flexible and inclusive on schools and the education system (Te Riele, 2006). This latter philosophy is espoused by the flexible learning programs studied for this review.

In response to increased educational disenfranchisement in recent decades, the schooling landscape in Australia has diversified. Flexible and inclusive education programs have emerged as an attempt to address social justice and equality of opportunity concerns inherent in young people’s withdrawal from formal learning. Referred to as ‘flexischools’, community colleges or special assistance schools, these diverse sites of learning have developed from isolated and small-scale community-based projects into one of the fastest growing schooling sectors in Australia (Mills, 2015; Mills & McGregor, 2014). The diversity and small size of programs, along with funding insecurities, have historically rendered this sector sidelined and difficult to quantify (Hayes, 2013). A 2014 report estimated that approximately 900 flexible learning options educate at least 70 000 young people across Australia each year (Te Riele, 2014). Despite the great diversity of these sites, they tend to be unified by a shared vision of social justice and provide educational opportunities for young people who lack access to, or are disenfranchised with, mainstream schooling (Mills & McGregor, 2014; Te Riele, 2014).

The definition of this schooling sector for the purpose of this study is based on the work of the Australian Association for Flexible and Inclusive Education (2021), the national peak body for flexible and inclusive education, and Kitty Te Riele (2014), a leading scholar in the field. Included programs are voluntary, offer general education at secondary level, provide opportunities for achieving recognised credentials, tailor learning opportunities to the unique strengths, needs and interests of their students, and are committed to working with young people who are vulnerable, marginalised or have experienced adversity. Excluded are schools and programs designed solely for students with disabilities (e.g. special schools), mandatory behaviour modification initiatives (e.g. suspension centres) and schools which follow a specific progressive era educational philosophy (e.g. Steiner Education) as their pedagogies are distinct. This review of the literature synthesises current research on young people's experiences of flexible learning options. The emerging and under-researched nature of this education sector inspired the exploratory research question: How do young people in Australia experience learning in flexible and inclusive education programs?

Methods

Data collection

A systematic search of current, relevant and scholarly literature was conducted using the electronic databases ERIC, A + Education and ProQuest Education. The search terms ‘flexible learning’, ‘alternative education’, ‘inclusive’, ‘disengaged’, ‘disenfranchised’, ‘marginali?ed’, ‘vulnerable’, ‘at risk’, ‘young people’, ‘youth’, ‘students’, ‘adolescents’, ‘engage’, ‘re-engage’, ‘interview*’ and ‘qualitative’ were combined in three different ways for each database applying Boolean logic (see Table 1) to achieve a saturation of research papers with no new studies surfacing in the final search for each database (Newman & Gough, 2020). Search terms that were closely related to and/or synonymous with key concepts in the research question and frequently appeared in publications on flexible and inclusive education formed the basis of the database searches (Coughlan & Cronin, 2016). In addition, we conducted a comprehensive search of Google Scholar using a simplified version of the database search formula and scanned the reference lists of included studies for further relevant research.

Table 1 Database search strategy
Full size table

To further narrow down the selection of research articles in line with the focus of the review, several criteria were applied to the search (Gough et al., 2017):

  • Literature was limited to peer reviewed articles of research conducted in Australia, published between 2012 and 2023 and written in English.

  • Only research projects which gathered qualitative data from current or former students of flexible and inclusive learning programs were included for review.

This review was sparked by a growing body of literature on students’ experiences of flexible and inclusive education in Australia. While we recognise that innovative approaches to addressing educational disenfranchisement have a long history and are continuously developed in various countries (Noddings & Lees, 2016; O’Gorman et al., 2016), the specific policy and practice context of the Australian education system and the unique features of flexible and inclusive learning options as an emerging and distinct education sector informed our decision to limit this review to Australian research.

During the selection process, 369 abstracts and 80 full-text articles were screened and 21 sources were deemed relevant and included sufficient student perspectives. A Google Scholar search yielded four additional studies and a further three sources were identified in the reference lists of included articles. Figure 1 presents a PRISMA diagram of the literature search and selection of articles (Page et al., 2020). In preparation for analysis, data was extracted from each article and collated in a table which captured publication date, author/s, title, participants, methods and key findings in relation to student perspectives (Newman & Gough, 2020). An overview of included sources is presented in Table 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of literature search and article selection

Full size image
Table 2 Summary table of included sources
Full size table

Data analysis

The 28 articles found to be relevant to this review were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis, as proposed by Mayring (2000), is an ongoing iterative process during which categories are formed, verified, reviewed and adjusted as research teams read and re-read research data. Through this thematic synthesis, the research team aimed to contribute to the development of a shared language in relation to flexible and inclusive pedagogies, with the potential to inform policy, practice and further research (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009). Inductive analysis, a process which moves from the specific to the general, was used to derive initial categories out of the data collected on young people’s experiences of flexible and inclusive learning environments (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). As data analysis progressed, deductive analytic processes, which utilise established concepts to analyse and integrate new information, assisted with the consolidation of categories into themes (Burns & Grove, 2005). Moving between the general and the specific in this way enabled us to recognise, describe and validate commonalities and shared understandings within and across the young people’s narratives. To address the risk of bias, two researchers undertook the analysis separately and collaborated in the development of final themes.

In the first phase of analysis, we assigned individual codes to text passages which presented findings on students’ perspectives. This was followed by a consolidation of codes into tentative categories. Finally, we reviewed our work by cross-checking our categories against the original text passages and described four themes which emerged from the data: Relationships, flexible and personally relevant learning, personal and socio-emotional support, and challenges encountered. The decision to use this approach was justified by the exploratory research question and the qualitative and narrative nature of data on young people’s experiences of flexible and inclusive education.

Results

Young people’s experiences of flexible and inclusive learning environments

Relationships

Students in the reviewed studies appreciated the strong and trusting relationships they had developed with adults in their flexible programs. Young people characterised their teachers and youth support workers as welcoming, friendly, respectful, caring, supportive, equal, non-judgmental, trustworthy, patient, approachable and responsive to their circumstances and needs (see for example, McGregor & Mills, 2012; Stokes & Aaltonen, 2021; Waters, 2017). Their positive attributes promoted the establishment of stable, trusting relationships and allowed students to experience a sense of safety and belonging in a community that was frequently referred to as feeling like home or family (see for example, Baker, 2016; Baroutsis et al., 2016; Myconos et al., 2016).

This place is like a haven for me. As soon as I step through that front door, my troubles go away and I’m just with my family, my school family. (student voice in Lewthwaite et al., 2017, p. 397)

These strong bonds between adults and young people laid the foundation for students’ wellbeing and learning in an environment in which young people were respected, cared for and treated fairly (Leitão et al., 2023; MacDonald et al., 2019). Across the studies reviewed, the significance of positive student-adult relationships for young people’s engagement in flexible learning programs emerged as a central theme.

In addition to positive relationships, young people also recognised and appreciated the pedagogic qualities of their teachers. Research participants experienced their teachers as skilful, passionate, authentic and enthusiastic with a great interest in facilitating the personal growth and learning of all students (see for example,Brandenburg, 2021; McGregor et al., 2015; Msapenda & Hudson, 2013). Vadeboncoeur and Vellos (2016) explored the quality of student–teacher relationships in flexible and inclusive education programs in Australia and Canada and concluded that trust, equity and care are the building blocks for strong connections. Together, students and their teachers envisioned new possibilities and co-created social futures once deemed unimaginable, futures in which they reconnected with their cultural communities, experienced positive interpersonal relationships and pursued meaningful education and employment pathways.

Furthermore, young people described a positive and affirming relational and learning environment which enabled them to focus on their goals (Brandenburg, 2021; Robinson & Smyth, 2016). This led to a transformation of their self-image and the internalisation of personal qualities such as courage, responsibility, resilience, confidence, self-regulation, self-awareness, perseverance and hopefulness (see for example,Moffatt & Riddle, 2021; Smyth & McInerney, 2013; Stokes & Aaltonen, 2021).

Since coming here, I have grown up a lot. I’ve been finding out what life is about. I’m in control of myself now. My aim now is to finish a number of certificate courses and make a career out of cooking. There is nothing better than a career you enjoy doing – one that can take you all the way around the world. (student voice in Robinson & Smyth, 2016, pp. 332-333).

Positive relationships with teachers who believed in and were committed to them laid the foundation for a transformational educational experience for young people.

Flexible and personally relevant learning

Access to flexible and personally relevant learning opportunities emerged as another central theme. Learners in flexible and inclusive education programs were able to acquire knowledge and practise skills with high applicability to their personal lives, interests, passions and future goals (see for example,Brandenburg, 2021; Lewthwaite et al., 2017; Msapenda & Hudson, 2013).

Most of what I know about music now I credit to that Flexi School teacher. I only ever did music there, so I only spent time learning in the studio making beats. I don’t know why they allowed me to only do music. I got a Certificate III in Music Production. (student voice in Moffatt & Riddle, 2021, p. 1468)

Their efforts were scaffolded by teachers who planned, worked and reflected alongside individual students and gave them agency, choices and time and space to learn at their own pace (see for example,Butson & Jeanes, 2023; Hobbs & Power, 2013; McGregor et al., 2015). Young people described their learning as holistic and extending beyond traditional academic subjects and topics to include, for example, interpersonal skills they could draw on to improve personal relationships within their families and friendships (Plows et al., 2017). Having agency and choice over their learning made students feel empowered and in control.

Certain characteristics of the educational environment facilitated students’ access to learning, such as small and consistent learning groups (see for example,Leitão et al., 2023; MacDonald et al., 2019; Stokes & Aaltonen, 2021), flexible, personalised and self-paced timetables (Bloomfield et al., 2022; Brandenburg, 2021; Plage et al., 2022), a crèche for young parents (Mills & McGregor, 2016) and a mobile van for outreach education (Reimer & Pangrazio, 2020).

When I started there was a small group, only ten pupils. It was so nice, you were able to do things according to your own rhythm. I was astonished: Can it really be this fun to be at school? (student voice in Stokes & Aaltonen, 2021, p. 10)

Student feedback indicates that flexible and inclusive learning programs go to great lengths to respond to the individual strengths, needs, interests and life goals of each student.

The concepts of connection, content and motivation to learn were frequently interrelated in young people’s narratives. Te Riele et al. (2016) discovered a strong relationship between interest, belonging and engagement. Young people who were able to connect with learning opportunities and content on a personal level experienced increased motivation and engagement (Brandenburg, 2021; Msapenda & Hudson, 2013; Reimer & Pangrazio, 2020).

The majority of the girls will actually stick with the course because they generally do like it, they generally are interested. Even out at break we’ll all be debating something or talking about something that we’ve just learnt. (student voice in Te Riele et al., 2016, pp. 55-56)

Students exercised choice in relation to their education and this increased agency enabled them to experiment with new ideas, explore their creativity and experience self-pride for discovering new interests and skills and conquering challenges (Brandenburg, 2021; Rushton & Wilson, 2020). Furthermore, sharing an interest or experience with other young people and teachers fostered the emergence of shared identities and a sense of belonging and community (Te Riele et al., 2016). Therefore, the pursuit of interest-based and person-centred learning opportunities in a community of learners emerged as another essential ingredient for an engaging and motivating educational program.

Personal and socio-emotional support

Young people valued the additional support they received with personal matters and socio-emotional challenges. The assistance educators and other school staff provided went above and beyond conventional conceptualisations of teaching and learning in mainstream schooling and included tailored mental health and wellbeing support (see for example,Hobbs & Power, 2013; Lewthwaite et al., 2017; McGregor & Mills, 2012). Specifically, participants appreciated being able to talk with teachers about personal problems and developing practical skills required for independent living, such as healthy cooking and finding and maintaining employment and housing (see for example,Bloomfield et al., 2022; Butson & Jeanes, 2023; Moffatt & Riddle, 2021).

If you’re wanting to get away from your family problems you just come to school, you know you can talk to one of the teachers or one of the youth workers and just nut it out. (student voice in McGregor & Mills, 2012, p. 856)

In addition, teachers and wellbeing staff frequently and promptly referred students to external support services and programs and assisted them with connecting to community resources (Brandenburg, 2021; Mills & McGregor, 2016). This holistic and personalised wellbeing support continued during COVID-19 school closures (Plage et al., 2022). It was evident in the young people’s narratives that their teachers were prepared to redefine the concept of support in education in their efforts to assist students individually.

Challenges young people encountered in flexible and inclusive education

Seven of the articles included in this review reported on challenges young people encountered in their flexible education programs. Frequently disclosed concerns included a disorganised and disruptive learning environment, a shortage of appropriate resources and lack of stimulating and challenging learning opportunities, limited socio-emotional support and exclusionary practices, such as peer bullying and conflict, and dismissive staff attitudes (Baker, 2016; Callingham, 2017; MacDonald et al., 2019). While many students appreciated the freedom, choice and flexibility their learning programs offered, for some, the absence of structure, guidelines and clear direction compromised their ongoing engagement (Msapenda & Hudson, 2013).

Personally, I think that there is just too much freedom there. If people don't go for a whole week they should say that you need to come in. People can go for, like, a month and they will just get a phone call saying, ‘What's going on?’ I think it's just saying to them, ‘Oh you don't have to go in’. (student voice in Msapenda & Hudson, 2013, p. 48)

It appeared that, for some young people, too much freedom and not enough follow up and reflective conversations with mentors had a de-motivating effect, which led to non-attendance.

Another recurrent theme was the social stigma and discrimination some students faced because of their enrolment in a flexible program. Some young people felt judged for going to a ‘flexischool’ and believed that more needed to be done to address negative community attitudes and foster respect for flexible and inclusive education (Fish, 2017). In some instances, students appeared to have internalised deficit narratives about themselves and their education, stating that flexible programs are not for ‘kids who are really smart and stuff’ or ‘for the most normal of kids’ (student voice in Plows et al., 2017, p. 35). Students’ perceptions of their education as being second best were further exacerbated by a lack of adequate resources and high quality, intellectually challenging curriculum options, along with uncertainties about the merit of their achievements and educational attainment beyond the alternative sector (Mills et al., 2016; Msapenda & Hudson, 2013).

It's good because it’s a lot less work, but bad because I don’t feel like I learn anything I haven’t already learned. It feels like I’m just repeating. (student voice in Mills et al., 2016, p. 108)

Therefore, reframing of flexible and inclusive schooling and adequate resourcing of this emerging education sector are required to enable all students to experience pride and success in their education.

Discussion

In this article we reviewed and synthesised current, empirical literature on young people’s experiences of flexible and inclusive education programs. In the 28 studies that met the inclusion criteria, participants identified the benefits as well as challenges inherent in engaging in non-traditional learning environments. As a result, we gained an overall understanding of how students experience and navigate these emerging alternatives to mainstream education. Young people’s perspectives on flexible learning programs were overwhelmingly positive. Students appreciated positive and respectful relationships, flexible, interesting and personally meaningful learning opportunities, a sense of belonging to a welcoming and safe community and individualised socio-emotional and practical support.

The relational nature of learning and teaching and the significance of positive student–teacher relationships for young people’s wellbeing and sustained engagement in education are well established in the literature (see for example,García-Moya et al., 2019; Obsuth et al., 2017; Pallini et al., 2019; Sointu et al., 2017). Oberle et al. (2014) explored the role of supportive adults in the lives of primary age children in Canada and concluded that, for their participants, positive relationships with teachers and other school staff were the strongest predictors for student wellbeing at school. Examining the characteristics and implications of student–teacher relationships for young people’s success with learning, Van Bergen et al. (2019) assert that positive connections between learners and teachers are beneficial for all young people, regardless of their learning styles, developmental status, behavioural characteristics and social context. Therefore, they recommend that ‘schools focus on relationships as an essential priority’ (p. 312). In recognition of the centrality of relationships for learning, Hickey and Riddle (2023) propose a framework for relational pedagogies which position relational encounters between students and teachers at the core of educational experiences. They describe a deliberate commitment to democratic, participatory and mutually meaningful engagement processes between students and teachers which harness the power of informality inherent in in-the-moment pedagogical encounters. Elements of this framework were evident in young people’s descriptions of their relationships with teachers in flexible and inclusive education programs.

The participants in the studies reviewed valued opportunities to learn about topics of interest to them in a highly supportive and self-paced learning environment. Working in small groups, they received one-on-one teacher assistance frequently and were able to see the real-life applicability of content and connect it to their future goals and hopes. The link between interest-based pedagogies and student motivation and engagement in learning is well established in the academic literature. For example, research in the field of reading skills acquisition has repeatedly demonstrated that young people who are able to choose reading material based on their interests read more frequently and acquire fundamental skills and techniques for independent reading more effectively (see for example,Allred & Cena, 2020; Fisher & Frey, 2018; Springer et al., 2017). Synthesising evidence from educational psychology and neuroscience, Renninger and Hidi (2016) explain the powerful effect of interest on success in academic efforts and life satisfaction. Engagement with content of interest is self-sustaining and positively affects attention, motivation, comprehension and goal setting and pursuit, thus facilitating achievement and success in academic and career pursuits. Opportunities to develop their learning goals and structure educational experiences around areas of interest to them were appreciated and embraced by the young people whose voices are presented in this review.

Closely linked to interest-based and flexible learning are the concepts of student agency and choice. Students spoke about feeling in control of their learning pathways and the sense of empowerment that came with having choices. Wiliams (2017) outlines the value of pedagogies which shift the locus of control from the teacher to the student and support young people to become experts in their own learning. By dismantling traditional power hierarchies in the classroom, student agency, their ability to take active steps towards self-defined goals, can flourish in an atmosphere of self-determination (Claxton, 2013; Johnston, 2004). This is of particular relevance for students who have been disenfranchised from mainstream education, giving them the confidence, knowledge and skills required to challenge their own socio-economic marginalisation and that of their communities (Freire, 1972; Thomas, 2018). For the young people in the literature reviewed, having freedom and choice increased their motivation to engage in a learning environment in which their unique individuality was valued, nurtured and encouraged.

The support students received with personal problems and socio-emotional challenges was highly valued by the young people who took part in the included studies. Their teachers and other school staff provided assistance with matters such as housing instability, food insecurity, family relationships, parenting, self-care strategies, mental health and independent living skills, and connected students with appropriate services in the local community for additional support. The link between out-of-school factors and poor educational engagement and achievement has been well documented in the academic literature (see for example,Ravitch, 2015; Rothstein, 2013; Von Stumm, 2017). Sammen (2017) consolidates this data into a social determinants of education framework and advocates for systemic attention to social justice in education. Based on the well-established and widely accepted social determinants of health (Brown & Homan, 2023; Marmot et al., 2008), this framework posits that the social and physical environment, physical and psychosocial health and wellbeing, economic conditions and material security of students and their families significantly impact engagement and success in education and, as a consequence, future life outcomes and satisfaction (Sammen, 2017). The pursuit of equity and social justice through education requires a recognition of and an impetus to action on these determinants. Flexible and inclusive learning programs are leading the way in this endeavour.

Attending non-traditional learning programs was not without challenges. These included an over-emphasis on freedom, choice and initiative, and lack of guidance and structure, a distracting and disruptive learning environment, a lack of intellectual stimulation and the social stigma attached to attending a ‘flexischool’. Mills et al. (2016) investigate curricular choices and pedagogical opportunities in flexible learning environments and identify a need for rigorous academic programs which allow students to develop the knowledge, skills and credentials they require to pursue their career aspirations. A lack of high-quality educational opportunities might contribute to young people’s further marginalisation and social isolation, by locking them into a cycle of menial labour work with limited career progression opportunities (Bardsley, 2007; Hayes, 2013). In addition, the provision of adequate resources and high quality, intellectually challenging curriculum options have the potential to address the stigmatisation that some students face and enable them to experience pride in their achievements (Mills et al., 2016). To address these concerns, future research should examine the overall educational achievement and life trajectories of flexible learning program graduates.

A synthesis of the student perspectives reviewed and the themes which emerged from them paints a picture of a distinct pedagogical framework adopted by flexible and inclusive learning programs in Australia (see Fig. 2). In these spaces counter to mainstream education, students experience interest-based, self-paced and highly supported learning in a school climate that prioritises relationships, diversity, inclusion and a sense of belonging to a community. Teachers and support staff are caring, committed, passionate, encouraging and supportive facilitators of learning, personal growth and positive change for young people who have experienced exclusion, marginalisation and disenfranchisement in traditional schools. They embed personalised wellbeing support in a student-centred and -led holistic educational experience and link young people with communities, services, further education and training and employment opportunities beyond school. Exposure to this pedagogical approach promotes the development of agency, responsibility, hopefulness, confidence, motivation and perseverance in students, and allows them to experience self-efficacy and a sense of achievement. Together adults and young people re-imagine positive futures and embark on a journey towards them.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Visualisation of identified themes and their significance for young people’s learning experiences in flexible and inclusive programs

Full size image

Conclusion

Overall, the young people who contributed their perspectives in this review painted a picture of a holistic educational experience in flexible and inclusive learning programs. In these alternative spaces, they encountered a learning environment that made them feel like they mattered through person-centred, interest-based and relational pedagogies. They were supported by caring and dedicated teachers and support staff who respected them and their agency and responded to their individual strengths and challenges.

We contend that mainstream schooling can learn a lot from ‘flexischools’ and recommend a fundamental rethinking of the way education is currently conceptualised. Creating time and space for cultivating positive student–teacher relationships, and giving students agency and curriculum choices based on their interests and future aspirations would allow all young people access to an engaging and meaningful educational experience. The development of a school climate that promotes the health, wellbeing and social connectedness of every student should be a priority item on the strategic planning agendas of all schools. Furthermore, programs and services for addressing students’ specific mental health and wellbeing needs are urgently required across all school types. We understand that school reform efforts are frequently hampered by systemic barriers and advise education departments to heed the messages of this review and create an institutional context in which new ways of thinking about and doing education are valued and facilitated.

Flexible learning programs are encouraged to listen and respond to the challenges young people have identified. For education to be relevant and meaningful, it must create post-school opportunities and avenues towards young people’s future career and life goals. This is particularly important for students with limited economic and social resources and imperative for achieving social justice and equity through education. We therefore recommend that flexible programs advocate for and provide the resources required to implement a rigorous, academically stimulating curriculum which conveys the notion of a future full of possibilities to young people. This would also go a long way towards dismantling the stigma of flexible and inclusive education being perceived as inferior to traditional schooling.

In consolidating our findings, we would like to encourage the education research community to build on existing knowledge and dig deeper into this emerging field of education practice. A better understanding of why young people’s disenfranchisement with mainstream school continues to grow and what needs to be different in order to fulfill their right to a meaningful education is urgently needed. Furthermore, an exploration of the post-school trajectories of ‘flexischool’ graduates would allow insights into the long-term impact of this growing schooling sector and highlight opportunities as well as shortcomings as an impetus for practice development. Most importantly, we appeal to teachers, school leaders, policy makers and researchers to listen to the voices of young people and reconsider the way education is currently structured to ensure that all young people have access to safe, supportive, affirming and personally meaningful learning environments.