Education-line Home Page

Re-engaging Disaffected Pupils in Learning: Insights for Policy and Practice

Kathryn Riley, Steve Ellis and Sherry Hallmond

with Jim Docking, Jason Johnson, Kay Smith, Jean Seddon and James Tarrant.

Supporting Institutions: Professor Kathryn Riley (Centre for Leadership in Learning, Institute of Education, University of London)

Steve Ellis (Margaret McMillan Outdoor Education, Kent)

Wendy Weinstock (Independent Consultant)

Sherry Hallmond (University of Greenwich)

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University College Dublin, 7-10 September 2005

Abstract: This paper summarises findings from an ongoing research and development project, ‘Re-engaging Disaffected Pupils in Learning,’ which involves students who are troubled and troublesome in five London schools, all in challenging urban contexts. It outlines the project’s approach, key features of which include:

  • Involving the students themselves as change agents;
  • Enabling them to experience learning in an active outdoor education environment;
  • Creating time and opportunities for staff to work with their students in new ways; and
  • Developing strategies which will remove some of the barriers to learning for disaffected students.
  • The paper offers a review of the impact of the project to date, particularly the ways in which involving pupils in a new learning environment - an outdoor education experience - can transform their views about themselves as learners. It also offers a broader analysis of the implications of developing a change strategy designed to re-engage marginalised pupils from urban schools in learning.

    This paper represents work in progress

    Perspectives on Disaffection

    From a policy-maker’s perspective, pupil behaviour is seen as an endemic problem: from a practitioner’s perspective, it can be a major challenge. The stakes are high. According to recently published figures from the UK’s Department of Education and Skills, almost 10% of boys aged 13-14 were suspended in 2003, more than 200,000 pupils were given a total of 344,000 fixed term exclusions and there were 9,880 permanent exclusions, an increase of 6% over the previous year (Slater, 2005:1). In a report on pupil exclusion (due to be launched in the Autumn of 2005), the Institute of Public Policy Research (a UK ‘think-tank’) is due to argue that excluding pupils from school for long periods of time does not solve behaviour problems (Slater, 2005:2).

    Government views about the causes of underperformance and exclusion and about the remedies vary. Notions of failure and exclusions are culturally specific. Young people in Denmark or Sweden, for example, cannot be formally excluded from schools as they can in the UK or US (Osler and Hill, 1998; Parsons 1999). In a number of OECD counties, including the UK, the recent policy discourse on pupil disaffection and disengagement from learning has tended to focus on the perceived failures of the child or young person, or on their families or communities (Riley and Rustique-Forrester, 2002). The pupils are portrayed as anti-social, their parents are feckless, and their communities as rejecting agreed social norms. Policy responses to this deficit construction include zero tolerance of poor behaviour in schools and court orders on parents to ensure their child attends school (Shaw, 2005).

    There are other possible policy options. These include exploring the complex range of factors to do with teachers, classrooms, schools and pupils and parents which impinge on the learning process and which can have an impact on pupil behaviour, as well as strategies which involve teachers, parents and pupils in working together to explore the causes of disaffection, and to identify remedies (Riley and Rustique-Forrester, 2002). They also include an exploration of the ways in which different learning environments, such as outdoor education experience, can alter students’ views about themselves, and about themselves as learners.

    The policy debate on pupil disengagement has rarely focused on how to listen to young people and understand their point of view, or how to encourage them to become change agents, rather than problems to be sorted. Levin (1999) is one of the few to have argued consistently over a number of years that involving pupils is a fundamental part of the change process and will make the reform efforts more successful and meaningful. Yet a strong case can be made for involving school students in decisions that affect their education and welfare. This case can be made on a range of considerations, from the moral to the pragmatic (MacBeath et al, 2001; Rudduck and Flutter (2000). Recognising the value of the pupil perspective can help teachers understand the disparity between ‘curriculum as intended and the curriculum as experienced’ (Pollard et al., 2000).

    Re-engaging Disaffected Pupils in Learning

    The project ‘Re-engaging Disaffected Pupils in Learning’ began in June 2004 and will come to an end in August 2006. It focuses on some 60 pupils in five London secondary schools, all in challenging urban contexts. Three schools are in Greenwich (Eltham Green, Kidbrooke and Thomas Tallis) and two in Hammersmith and Fulham (Bridge Academy and Henry Compton). The Bridge Academy is a designated a Pupil Referral Unit and takes students who have been excluded from mainstream schools. Margaret McMillan House (MMH) Outdoor Education Centre, Kent is a key partner in the project(1).

    The project which is funded through the London Challenge – a national Government strategy to improve London’s secondary schools - has two major goals. The first is to raise the aspirations of the students in the five schools involved in the project, raise their self-esteem in ways that will have a positive impact on their engagement in learning and improve their levels of achievement. This goal has implications for staff (how to develop collaboration and learning within and across), and for parents and staff (how to remove some of the barriers between them).

    The project’s second and broader objective goes beyond these five schools. It is about developing a perspective on pupil disengagement which can be of benefit to a wider number of schools, particularly across London. ‘Re-engaging Disaffected Pupils in Learning’ is thus both developmental (aiming to make a real and tangible difference to the students involved in the project) and research based (aiming to contribute to our understanding about policy and practice in the field).

    The project’s research strategy has two interconnected elements: the first is about providing school staff involved in the project with research tools which will enable them to gain greater insights into the lives and experiences of the children and young people they are working with. The second element is about using a range of research tools to evaluate the impact of the approaches being used in the project.

    The study draws on a range of data sources:

    Taking Steps to Make a Difference

    The project consultant, Kathryn Riley, had previously led a major project in Lancashire which had looked at student disaffection and disengagement from the vantage points of pupils, parents, teachers, headteachers, and a range of other professionals working in the field (Riley and Rustique-Forrester, 2002). The findings from this work were used to develop a change framework for the London project which involved staff, pupils and parents. That framework aims to:

    School teams have been set up in each of the five project schools. In Year 1 of the Project (September 2004-July 2005), the school teams have been using a range of tools and approaches to examine how disaffected students experience their learning. They have also worked to develop strategies to improve learning opportunities and to share their learning with colleagues. The focus on Year 2 (September 2005-July 2006) will be on how to transfer this learning into the school curriculum, and into schools’ day-to-day practices.

    The project framework has been formulated as six steps for action:

    In the following section of the paper we discuss these steps more fully.

    Step I: Identify a core team of staff who want to explore new ways of working with pupils and develop a change strategy.

    Each participating school was asked to provide a team of teachers and learning mentors who wanted to work with marginalised pupils in new ways. The school teams have developed their own school-based strategies to work with students and parents and have identified a cohort of between 10-15 students to participate in the project, creating a positive ‘buy in’ from pupils as part of the ‘Challenge Group’. Appendix I offers an example of how one school has projected involvement in the project to its students. Students told us that they had signed up to the project because:

    The term ‘disaffected’ is a powerful one which can be interpreted in many different ways. When schools were asked to identify pupils who were viewed as disaffected for the purposes of this project, they were able to come up with 10-15 individuals in a year group who were at risk of failure through poor attendance, lack of interest in (most) lessons, bad behaviour or absence of motivation. The different schools in the project were anxious about pupils at different ages. While some schools looked immediately to year 10 in the hope of rescuing the vulnerable group from failure at KS4, others wanted to focus on younger pupils, in year 8 in one example, in order to intervene and make an impact at KS3. While each school had already set in place various measures to re-engage disaffected pupils, the chance to try something different was attractive, a measure of the concern that these pupils generate. Despite the energetic and imaginative efforts of schools, disaffected pupils can breed despair in their teachers.

    Step 2: Give staff time to share their aspirations.

    We began by asking the staff involved in the project to identity what they hoped to achieve through the project: what changes did they want in their schools, and for young people? When the staff first came together and were asked to express their aspirations in posters (see Riley et al., 2005), cheerful feelings emerged about the opportunity to try something that would re-invigorate teachers and bring people together with a common purpose. This sense of common purpose would help to alleviate the negative feelings of isolation that working with the most difficult children evoke in staff, and also help reduce the number of situations in which pupils themselves felt stuck, powerless, misunderstood or full of rage. Staff commented that trust was needed to build new relationships and create alternative sets of expectations and to move away from a ‘Why should I?’ culture to one which generated confidence, excitement, purpose, engagement and achievement: ‘Dream it, Be it, Learn it. Share it’ was the slogan for one poster.

    Some of the ideas expressed by staff in that first session mirrored the feelings that were later expressed by the children themselves. In the base-line questionnaire (discussed under step 4), a key finding was that children valued school but did not like it. Thus it made sense to adopt an approach which sought to work with the pupils, consulting their wishes and aspirations and seeking to gain new insights into their learning needs. Staff welcomed this approach commenting:

    Step 3: Give staff opportunities to experiment with a range of research tools and work together.

    The school teams were offered a range of research tools to look at pupils’ experience in new ways. These included:

  • A framework for recording their experiences as a pupil for a day;
  • A framework for a short questionnaire and focus group discussions with parents, pupils or staff, or for all three groups;
  • How to use pupils’ drawings as a way of enabling them to describe their school experience in a different way.
  • These activities gave staff important insights into the totality of the school day and the importance of the learning environment (particularly for disaffected students). This led to the recognition that what happens at break-time can be as important as, or even more important than, what happens to students in the classroom. Staff found that being a pupil for the day was an exhausting experience. It required responding to a range of expectations and demands from different staff and from students. All were as wearied as their students by the emphasis on writing tasks in virtually every lesson. Staff found that using the research tools had been a refreshing experience which, as one teacher commented, enabled them to ‘think about what works for children, not how to jump exam hurdles. It’s what I came into teaching to do’.

    Step 4: Find out what pupils think and involve them in the change process

    Each school team has developed its own way of finding out what pupils think. But as we also wanted base-line information about pupils’ views. With the help of Dr Jim Docking, we developed a pupil questionnaire. Data from the first student questionnaire (which had an 89% response rate -71 pupils) indicates that while the bulk of the students involved in the project value school, they do not necessarily like it (4 out of 5 pupils valued school but only 1 out of 2 liked it - see Chart 1).

    In general, pupils’ feelings about school were mixed: there were some good and bad days, good and bad teachers. The questionnaire also revealed some important gender differences, for example, female students placed greater importance on going to school than their male counterparts. Students were united in their concerns about teacher-student relationships (teachers who nag, or who are deemed unfair); the quality of lessons (seen as dull and being too focused on writing tasks rather than more interactive forms of learning); and the failure of schools to take their views and opinions into account. Typical comments were:

  • Yes, listen to me for a change.
  • Understand my views.
  • Listen to us when we have something to say.
  • While comments within schools could differ, overall 1 in 2 pupils thought that if they were stuck in their school work, all or most teachers would help them, only 1 in 5 thought that staff listened to them, or knew and understood them (see chart 7).

    Step 5: Create new learning opportunities

    Inside school

    The school teams have provided space and opportunities for the students in the project to come together as a group(2). One school, Eltham Green, has been working with a group of 13 girls, selected specifically because they are very capable but are underachieving and are becoming disaffected and have poor attendance. They are a mixed ability group and meet once a week in school time. In Year I, the project set out to raise pupils’ self-esteem and pupils have prepared presentations about themselves and their aspirations. Comments from a PowerPoint presentation from one pupil included:

    What I like about me.............. I like to think I’ve got a nice heart but sometimes it is more or less in the wrong place.

    What I hate about myself……… Sometimes I get really aggressive towards people but I don’t mean it I guess I’m just trying to fit in.

    What I like about my school…. My mentors, they have always been there for me to sort out my problems. I really don’t know how they put up with me sometimes.

    What I hate about my school…. Teachers think they are helping you by shouting at you but really there not they are just causing you to react.

    In another school, Henry Compton, a boy’s school, a consultation exercise with the target group about the pupils’ likes and dislikes of school led to an exercise called ‘The Perfect Day’ in which the pupils planned a school day which the school then arranged for them, including lessons in English and Maths/IT specially designed to accommodate those features of lessons the pupils said they liked, and to have least of what they said they did not like. The strong positive response to the day by the pupils and the staff (including the English and Maths staff who became involved), serves to illustrate how, given additional time and resources, creative opportunities can be made and enacted. For these particular pupils, their expressed needs were explicitly addressed in lessons they chose themselves and involvement in the activity enabled them to think about learning about in a new way.

    Most of the staff involved in the Henry Compton Experiment are teachers who hold management positions in the school and are in a strong position to take the learning forward from the project into the wider curriculum. This is important as in some schools - which have thought of the project as being behavioural rather than learning related - the project has become largely the responsibility of learning mentors, rather than a partnership between teachers and mentors. While the contribution of mentors is invaluable, and is in line with the development of the mentor role in recent years, if the project is to have impact on the curriculum in terms of style and delivery, then involvement of teachers is paramount. The early indications at the beginning of Year II are that this is beginning to happen.

    Outside school

    A key question for the project has been: If we change the learning environment will this help pupils to reengage in learning in new ways? Given this question we began our partnership with Margaret McMillan House. We wanted to explore the ways in which an out-of-school, outdoor learning experience could enable young people to access learning in new and different ways. We set up a structured framework which involved a range of problem-solving and collaborative activities aimed at developing pupils’ confidence, skills and self-esteem. On the basis of previous work undertaken by staff at MMH, a working assumption was developed that three themes contribute towards building self esteem: feeling of belonging to a team, feeling positive about self and responses to undertaking new challenges. The interconnection of these themes is shown below:

    We used this framework to develop our programme for pupils, building up their involvement incrementally through four sets of activities:

    Visit 1 – Hub and Anderson Challenges (Autumn 04-05)

    This one day visit to Margaret McMillan House was designed to help the students understand the value of team work in developing their learning. The challenges were rooted in the idea of promoting emotional intelligence. The students were set a number of team and problem–solving tasks aimed at using their emotional intelligence and enhancing their self-esteem. Throughout the Challenges the students assessed their team performance with the help of VI form student mentors.

    Visit 2 – Star Challenge (Autumn 04-Spring 05)

    This was an overnight stay which built on the learning experience of visit 1. The outdoor adventurous experiences offered were more demanding and encouraged the students to step out of their comfort zones. The students were encouraged to foster good relationships with their peers, mentors and teachers.

    Visit 3 - In at the Deep End (Summer 05)

    This was an overnight camping expedition which involved canoeing in Canadian Canoes. The idea of this experience was to further develop the idea of team work and to promote a greater sense of independent learning.

    Visit 4 – Finding Your Way (Autumn 05 –Spring 06).

    An extended visit to Tyn-y-beth Mountain Centre, Powys, which is linked to MMH. During this visit the students will continue to develop their collaborative skills but in a more demanding and challenging environment. They will be encouraged to use their emotional intelligence in a deeper way. It is hoped that this visit will help the students transfer their newly acquired skills back into the school environment and beyond.

    In a paper such as this it is impossible to convey the impact of these activities on the students involved in the project: their enjoyment and perseverance, the ways in which they collaborated and supported each other. However, we have been able to capture some of this in the booklet on the project (Riley et al., 2005) and also in the video (London Challenge Design Collaborative, 2005)(3). In addition, we have also developed a number of student self-assessment tools designed to:

  • Evaluate the benefits to be gained from team-work and from undertaking the challenges at MMH;
  • Assess the impact on pupils’ self-esteem; and
  • Offer a greater understanding of what works for them as learners, and how these approaches could be translated into the school and class-room context.
  • The preliminary analysis indicates some important findings for pupils overall, as well as some distinctive gender differences(4). For each of the three visits, students completed a self-assessment exercise including text data (a diary exercise) and imaging (a drawing or painting). The data indicates significant and positive increases in how pupils felt about themselves, before and after the Challenges at MMH (see Table I). In each instance, the raw scores for girls (both before and after the activity) were considerably lower than the boys: that is girls’ feelings about themselves were much lower than boys.

    Table I

     

    Girls before

    Girls after

    Raw score increase

    % increase

    Boys before

    Boys after

    Raw score increase

    % increase

    Hub & Anderson Challenges

    72

    285

    213

    295.8%

    293

    630

    337

    115%

    Star Challenge

    104

    194

    90

    86.5%

    398

    741

    343

    86.1%

    In at the Deep End Challenge

    48

    184

    136

    283.3%

    278

    373

    95

    34%

    However, the percentage increases were higher for girls than boys. ‘In at the Deep End’ created considerable anxiety for a number of the students, girls and boys; they were worried about taking to the water, despite the life-jackets. We note here that swimming is no longer a major part of the KS3/4 curriculum and a number of the students appear to have had limited skills. Nevertheless, once on site, all participated in the activity.

    In addition to this broad tracking of pupils’ views about their state of mind before and after the activities, we took the three broad themes relating to self-esteem (‘feeling of belonging to a team’, ‘feeling positive about self’ and ‘responding to new undertaking new challenges) and developed three sub-categories for each (i.e. 9 in total) which we described as clusters of meaning (see Table 2):

    Table 2

    The analysis of the data from the ‘Hub and Anderson Challenge’, indicates that of the nine clusters shown above, three A1 (working together as part of a team), B4 (feeling good about self) and C8 (learning new skills) have the biggest impact on how students feel and learn. The main gender difference is that girls perceive the cluster of ‘working together as a team member’ (a collaborative active) as having a greater impact on their learning, while boys perceive the cluster of ‘learning a new skill’ (a more individual activity) as being more influential to their learning.

    When pupils’ raw scores for all of the activities (Hub and Anderson Challenges, Star Challenge, In at the Deep End)(5) are ranked by gender (Table 3), it would appear that for girls ‘feeling confident’ had the biggest impact on their learning. For boys, the top factor was ‘doing your best as a team member’. Both girls and boys appeared to have relished working together (3rd for girls) and 2nd for boys).

    Table 3

     

    Boys

    Girls

    Highest raw score

    1st Doing your best as a team member

    1st Feeling confident

     

    2nd Working together/ making progress as a team

    2nd Learning new skills

       

    3rd Working together

     

    4th Feeling good

    4th Making progress as a team

     

    5th Feeling proud

    5th Acquiring new skills

     

    6th Learning new skills

     
     

    7th Feeling confident

    7th Thinking about new ideas

     

    8th Acquiring new skills

    8th Doing your best

    Lowest raw score

    9th Thinking about new ideas

    9th Feeling good

    Step 6: Reflect on what we have learned

    The project began with four working assumptions or hypotheses about: pupils as change agents; learning and teaching; a professional learning community for staff; and about relationships. In the following section we summarise these and offer some reflections on our learning.

    Hypothesis I - Pupils as change agents: That viewing disaffected pupils as change agents, rather than as problems to be sorted will provide new insights into how marginalised pupils can become more re-engaged in learning

    Reflection: We have tried to take pupils’ views into account at every stage in the project and have also encouraged them to participate in feedback sessions about the project, not only within their own school (to staff and students) but also to more public audiences. Pupils’ involvement in shaping the direction of the project has generated new perspectives on learning, as cited in the earlier illustration of pupils planning their perfect day. It has also increased their self-awareness about themselves as learners and generated comments from them such as:

    Initial findings on staff perceptions indicate changes in staff views about the extent to which the pupils involved in the project are considered troubled and/or troublesome. There have also been some improvements in student attendance and reductions in predicted levels of exclusion from school.

    Hypothesis II - Learning and teaching: That as schooling is often a fragmented, disconnected and inconstant experience for many children and young people on the margins, any change and improvement strategy aimed at making a different to their experience of education must focus on new approaches to learning

    Reflection: Despite the opportunities offered by the resources and training for the delivery of the National Curriculum, school in-service training and support from the local authority, teachers struggle to provide an experience that engages all pupils. Even in the best of schools, some children remain on the margins, though not all of them generate concern. Most children, even if they are not deeply engaged, will comply with the system and do well enough. But children who do attract notice and generate concern offer an opportunity for teachers to learn and develop new strategies. By selecting a group for experimentation within the school and across schools in the same borough and across boroughs, there is an opportunity for new learning by teachers to be shared and to have an impact both on the children they work with, and on the school as a whole.

    The pupil self-assessment data indicates major positive changes in pupils’ views about themselves as learners, and in their self-esteem. It also appears to indicate that the majority of pupils in this project labelled as disaffected favour more kinaesthetic approaches to learning.

    Hypothesis III - A professional learning community for staff: That if school staff are given the time, tools and opportunities to look at pupils’ experiences of school in new and different ways, and the chance to work together in collaborative arrangements which take them beyond their classrooms and school gates, then they will develop new approaches to learning and teaching

    Reflection: In all of the school teams in the project, there are high levels of expertise among individuals. Staff have welcomed the opportunities to collaborate and to share this expertise. Once staff have been able to create the space from the immediacy of their day-to-day school lives - which has been far from easy - they have found the time to reflect energising and rewarding and have commented in the following terms:

    Hypothesis IV - Relationships: That the importance of the interplay between pupils and school staff cannot be underestimated, particularly for pupils on the margins, ands that creating opportunities for pupils and staff to develop meaningful relationships is a critical part of the change process

    Reflection: The questionnaire data revealed the importance of teacher-student relationships and students’ concerns about teachers who shout, nag, pick on individuals, or are unfair. They want their feelings and opinions to count for more. A key element of the project strategy has been to ensure that the students who are taking part are well supported and have key staff or learning mentors in their own school who know and understand them. Both students and staff have benefited from this enormously: pupils have commented on how they value having staff who know them well, and staff have enjoyed getting to know the pupils and seeing them in a more positive light.

    Final Reflections

    In this paper we have tried to provide an overview of the project and its impact so far. Working with pupils on the margins is a challenging task and the change process is messy and complicated. As all of the schools in the project are in challenging contexts, the day-to-day pressures cannot be underestimated. Six schools should have participated in the project but one was put into - what is described in the English inspection system as - ‘special measures’ and has had difficulty maintaining its research for this project in the course of the inevitable changes in staff, structure and organization involved in the process of righting the school. A second school which has maintained its involvement in the project has undergone a long delayed move to a new building, with attendant structural and organizational difficulties, so it also experienced difficulties in maintaining its research. It is a measure of the teachers’ determination in the participating schools to explore the possibilities of the project that work has continued.

    The challenges are considerable. We referred earlier to one example of a school-based activity led by pupils ‘Planning your Perfect Day’. Once pupils have been consulted as to their views and wishes, and they begin to see that these are being taken seriously and acted upon, there is a risk of further disaffection through disillusion and disappointment if the momentum is not sustained. For staff, it is difficult to maintain the impetus of in-school research given the demands of the school routines and events of the year.

    Despite these kinds of challenges, the benefits of the project are considerable. There are those which have arisen through a cross-school collaborative process which is beginning to reap rich rewards for the staff involved. There are the gains associated with staff having had the opportunity to see their pupils in a different way. The teamwork challenges at MMH provide many startling examples of pupils adopting responsible, active and creative roles that are rarely seen in school. These occasions provide opportunities for all involved in education to reconsider the term ‘active learning’ and how meaningful active learning should have its place in classrooms, as well as in the outdoor context.

    The project is ongoing and we will continue to report on progress. As an end note we include some of the comments from the students themselves about their involvement in the project:

    And some of our memories about those glorious moments:

    ‘In at the Deep End’: The girls’ group screamed all the way up river but the atmosphere was quiet and calm on the way back. They had succeeded in the task and were less worried about the bugs, insects and the water. They brought their canoes on shore like some victorious Polar Expedition team.

    And finally, a comment from a feed back session at MMH (caught on video) from the Hub and Anderson Challenge:

    (Boy I): ‘I just want to say something about x (boy 2). At school they think he’s thick and stupid, but he’s not. We couldn’t have done what we did today without him.’

    Acknowledgments: The project team would like to thank all of the students and staff involved in the project for the energy and commitment. We would also like to acknowledge our appreciation of the important role of the Project Steering Group in helping keep the project on track, and the financial support and overview from the London Challenge Team of the Department for Education and Skills.

    Responses: If you would like to comment on the issues raised in this paper, please contact:

    Professor Kathryn Riley
    Centre for Leadership in Learning
    Institute of Education, University of London
    20 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL
    k.riley@ioe.ac.uk

    For further information about the project, please contact:

    Kay Smith
    Project Administrator, Thomas Tallis School,
    Kidbrooke Park Road, London SE3 9PX
    s.kay@thomas
    tallis.greenwich.sch.uk

    Notes

    1. The project is supported by a Core Project Team which includes a project consultant (Professor Kathryn Riley), an administrator (Kay Smith), two borough-based researchers (Sherry Hallmond and Wendy Weinstock) two learning mentors (Jason Johnson and Jean Seddon) and staff from  Margaret McMillan House (MMH) Outdoor Education Centre, Kent. A Steering Group has oversight of the project.

    2. We will be reporting on this in more detail at a later stage

    3. Available from the project administrator, Kay Smith (see end note).

    4. This analysis is being undertaken by staff at Margaret McMillan House.

    Number taking part in the Hub and Anderson Challenges: Girls=17, Boys=33. Total =50

    Number taking part in the Star Challenge: Girls=17, Boys=36. Total participants = 53

    5. Number taking part in the In at the deep end Challenge Girls = 12 Boys 22 (No Bridge Academy). Total participants = 34

    References

    Levin, B. (1999) Putting students at the centre in educational reform, Journal of Educational Change 1 (2) 155-172.

    London Challenge Design Collaborative (2005) Re-engaging Disaffected Students in Learning: Video – New Ways of Learning. London: London Challenge Design Collaborative, Produced by Occasions Video Photography, available from Thomas Tallis School.

    MacBeath, J., Myers, K. and Demetriou , H. (2001) Supporting teachers in consulting pupils about aspects of teaching and learning, and evaluating impact, Forum, 43 (2), 78-82.

    Osler, A. and Hill, J. (1998) Exclusion from school and racial equality: an examination of government proposals in the light of research evidence, Cambridge Journal of Education, 28 (1), 33-59.

    Parsons, C. (1999) Education, Exclusion and Citizenship, London Routledge Press.

    Riley, K. A. and Rustique-Forrester, E. (2002) Working with Disaffected Students: Why students lose interest in school and what we can do about it. London: Chapman Sage.

    Riley, K. with Ellis, S., Hallmond, S., Johnson, J., Seddon, J., Smith, K., Tarrant, J. and Weinstock, W. (2005). Re-engaging Disaffected Students in Learning: Booklet One – Sharing Our Learning. London: London Challenge Design Collaborative, Thomas Tallis School.

    Ruddock, J. and Flutter, J. (2000) Pupil participation and pupil perspective: ‘craving a new order of experience’, Cambridge Journal of Educational Change, 30 (10), 75-89.

    Shaw, M. (2005) Teachers dismiss Blair’s blueprint, Times Educational Supplement, 22nd July, p.4.

    Slater, J. (2005: 1) ‘Exclude for just 3 days’, Times Educational Supplement, 24th June, p1.

    Slater, J. (2005:2) Boys’ exclusions hit five-year high’ Times Educational Supplement, 1st July, p2.

    Appendix I – Invitation to Students

    This document was added to the Education-Line database on 19 January 2006