‘Sent out’ andStepping Back In: stories from young people ‘placed at risk’

Evaluation of the National Youthreach Programme

“…Alternative education has a long history and can refer to anything other than stateprovided mainstream education. Many alternative education programmes are designed to meet the needs of at-risk students who are disenfranchised from the traditional school setting (Kim et al, 2008) by providing an innovative curriculum that engages students on an individual level (Robinson et al, 2016). Common characteristics of these settings include small class sizes and high teacher-student ratios, one-on-one interaction between teachers and students, a student-centred curriculum, flexibility in structure, a supportive and safe environment and positive rather than punitive behaviour management (O'Gorman et al, 2016;Lehr, 2004;Edgar-Smith and Baugher Palmer, 2015).…”

“…Some commentators raise the issue of alternative education as a system which does not challenge the broader school level and societal factors that have led to the exclusion of young people from mainstream education (Robinson and Smyth, 2016;Kim and Taylor, 2008). Much of this research points to the increasing accountability required in schools operating in certain education systems which tend to shift problems of early school leaving onto the individual and their families.…”

Identifying factors for poorer educational outcomes that may be exacerbated by COVID‐19: A systematic review focussing on at‐risk school children and adolescents

“…Five studies were identified in our review that examined SES (Abello et al, 2016; Freeman et al, 2011; Gray & Hackling, 2009; Ramsey et al, 2011; Rodwell et al, 2018). SES was variously measured as: parent education (Rodwell et al, 2018); household wealth (indexed by a range of components such as student has own room, housing price and crowding (Abello et al, 2016)); income of parents (Freeman et al, 2011; Robinson & Smyth, 2016); living in a household with food insecurity (Ramsey et al, 2011); “severe home and welfare problems” (Gray & Hackling, 2009); and a composite of parental income, employment and education (Abello et al, 2016). SES was associated with an increased risk of disengagement, measured as social exclusion (Abello et al, 2016), illicit drug use (Freeman et al, 2011), withdrawing from secondary education (Gray & Hackling, 2009), missing days from school or activities due to illness (Ramsey et al, 2011).…”

“…Further, parenting was mentioned in all papers identified. However, four studies specifically focussed on associations between the risk of disengaging from school and parenting style and support (Boon, 2014; Collie et al, 2017; Pendergast et al, 2018; Quin, 2019) and experiencing trauma, inadequate housing and/or violence (Pendergast et al, 2018; Robinson & Smyth, 2016). Poor family management or parenting practices were associated with the risk of suspension (Boon, 2014; Quin, 2019).…”

The value of poverty: an ethnographic study of a school–community partnership

“…According to the perspective used in this study, social problems are not defined in an objective manner. On the contrary, what appears to be a problem is dependent on the knowledge and definition established in different institutions and fields of knowledge within society (Robinson and Smyth 2016;Lemke 2002;Foucault 1987). Thus, the aims and strategies formulated within a school-community partnership can be viewed as constituting what the problem is, and thus allowing certain actions and explanations, while causing other interventions and interpretations to appear less suitable or credible (Bacchi 2016;Hacking 2004).…”