The ESRC-funded seminar series (2002-03) was organised by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) at the London School of Economics, in collaboration with the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), and was linked to the Skills for All Research Programme. Estimating the size of the challenge presented by disengagement and distinguishing the variety of needs of those in this group is still under-researched. The disengaged are located within the broad group who achieve less than five GCSE passes at A*-C grades at 16. This is made up of: 

• a very small group, the ‘out of touch’, (1-2 per cent) who have practically lost touch with school between 14 and 16. This group appears to make some progress in individualised alternative provision which provides one to one contact, an adult approach and atmosphere and new opportunities to mark progress through certification. However, success on even the best of these programmes is mixed and OFSTED have expressed deep concern about variability in quality of provision. 

• A larger group, difficult to estimate, but possibly to be identified with the roughly 20 per cent of the cohort who claim to have no GCSE qualifications at age 17/18/19, could be characterised as the ‘disaffected but in touch’ group. They appear to respond to a wide range of initiatives which often take them out of school, into FE or into a work-related or some other setting associated with leisure and cultural activities. Progress was mixed, as were experiences of work placements, which were of variable quality. There was also mixed evidence on improved attainment and progression to further education and training. OFSTED was cautious on this type of intervention, stressing the need for careful planning and monitoring of work placements. With this proviso, and based on relatively small quantities of pupil-level achievement data, OFSTED considered that well configured work placements might indeed contribute to re-engagement and improving performance. 

• A further group, also difficult to quantify, but perhaps close to the proportion who gain 1 or more, but less than five, Grade C or higher passes at GCSE, would account for up to a further 20 per cent. Within this ‘1-4 A-C Grade’ group, some may have reached their full potential, but others will be capable of much more if interest and enthusiasm can be aroused. This group has been targeted throughout the 1990s by initiatives to re-engage students’ interests through the provision of vocational subjects and qualifications. These have been felt to be more in tune with hobbies and out-of-school interests and allow students to demonstrate aptitudes and capabilities that are not called upon in the more ‘academic’ subjects. OFSTED expressed concern about the capacity of schools and teachers to offer such courses to the standard required. Nevertheless, the overall judgement has been that such vocational courses can have a highly motivating effect on students’ performance. Systematic and robust evaluation of the impact of studying vocational subjects on student motivation, achievement and progress has been lacking.

While the above offered some strategies for re-engaging the disaffected, the group expressed some caveats:

• Issue 1. Doubts were expressed about the underlying assumption that work-related learning is inherently more motivating for young people switched off by the existing curriculum. Could it be that the real issue is one that is more to do with pedagogical style, learning preferences and the provision of adequate support? We learned from the paper on the Swiss experience, for instance, that less academic youngsters appear to flourish more routinely in Swiss schools where the curriculum is broadly-based for longer, is more nurturing in delivery style and has more safety nets built into the system.

• Issue 2. It was argued that there was no a cast iron way forward for the ‘disaffected but in touch’ group, targeted by work-place learning measures, but improving the quality of provision, teacher skills and gaining a better understanding of need offer some ways forward. For the ‘1-4 Grade C’ group, there is something of a magic bullet; namely better vocational options. Many countries offer sizeable vocational programmes, apparently to good effect, and leading many to gain Level 3 qualifications, whereas considerable numbers of this group in the UK spend only one year post-compulsory, with no advancement on their Level 1 at GCSE. The danger is to try to apply the vocational options solution to the more disaffected, with the result that it doesn’t work for them and that it is discredited for the ‘1-4 Grade C’ group by association with the more disaffected.

• Issue 3. Much concern is expressed about the under-achievement of boys relative to girls. However, the McIntosh paper pointed to disastrous marginalisation or exclusion from the labour market of young women with no GCSE qualifications. The outcome for young women in this group was considerably worse than for young men. Are 14-16 girls, particularly those having difficulties with basic skills, benefiting to the same extent as 14-16 boys from interventions to raise achievements?

• Issue 4. It was found, both in the US and in England, that while motivation of groups targeted by work-related initiatives frequently improved, they failed to show consistent improvement on standard measures of achievement (e.g. GCSE points scores). Can motivation/engagement improve and yet not be translated into increased effort and therefore improved performance? Or has performance improved, but the improvement not been captured by the assessment process? Do the range of assessments used to try to capture improvement need to be broadened?

• Issue 5. The OECD PISA study showed even our poor-performers scoring better than their counterparts in some other countries. Yet perhaps half the English students scoring at Level 3 on the PISA tests may have failed to gain a Grade C GCSE pass in English (if we map directly across from PISA to GCSE). Are we setting the bar too high too early? Other countries with a more socially equitable distribution of educational achievement, (e.g. the Scandinavian countries) do not set a formidable hurdle at 16, and have fewer very high achievers, but also fewer very low achievers at age 15. What can we learn from this?

• Issue 6. Can we move more quickly towards de-coupling Key Stage 4 assessment from GCSE and encouraging a variation in length of preparation for GCSE? Or, for example, could we demand the same standards as now obtained at C+ for the aspects of maths and English which are vital for future life, but be less insistent on all achieving the grade for things like geometry and English literature? Fewer ‘failing’, i.e. not getting 5 A*-C, would mean less disaffection and discouragement.

• Issue 7. Some of the reasons for failure to progress are to be found in labour market characteristics and lack of transparent routes. Many of the disengaged appear to lack guidance and information about post-16 qualifications, training and subsequent labour market opportunities. There was general concern at the seminars that the Connexions service is having difficulty in meeting both mainstream and more specialist needs of young people. It was not clear what the considerable resources devoted to Connexions were ‘buying’. There was a strong feeling that the Connexions service is trying to do too much and not meeting any need fully. These complaints have been made - particularly in regard to information on further education and training opportunities supplied by schools - for at least the last 20 years. What do we need to do to make more progress on this front?

• Issue 8. Historical evidence (technical secondary schools; TVEI) show vocational/technical subjects and programmes as being particularly vulnerable to pressures to academicise content, to problems of quality and to the absence of natural champions i.e. employers and trade unions. The papers also hinted at the fragility of the supporting infrastructure, and problems of maintaining high quality learning experiences. They also stressed the importance of ensuring that teachers have appropriate vocational experience and skills and the opportunity to make links with employers in relevant occupational areas. What safeguards are in place to ensure that the GCSE in vocational subjects initiative is supported by high quality appropriate course content and taught by appropriately qualified teachers? How is the need for equipment and resources to provide for the practical elements in GCSE in vocational subjects being met? Can we be sure that this technical/vocational initiative will finally receive the sustained support necessary for survival?

The above is based on extracts from the executive summary by Hilary Steedman (CEP) and Sheila Stoney (NFER), which itself is based on papers presented at the ESRC-funded seminar series. They include contributions from: W. R Richardson (Exeter); K. Franklin (Sheffield College and formerly DfES); V Bayliss (Consultant and formerly DfES); A. Schleicher (OECD); K. Stasz (Rand Europe); J.Whitburn (NIESR); I. Schoon (City University; S. McIntosh (CEP); D. Hall and C. Raffo (University of Manchester); A. Watson (SWA); J. Mattick (OFSTED); J. West (CLMS, Leicester); M. Morris (NFER); S. Kendall and K. Kinder (NFER); and D. Hughes (University of Derby). Many of these can be found at the seminar series website