By Peter Roguszka
 Download this article 128.67 Kb
Back to new Transitions - Re-Engagement Edition

Introduction: Why do young people become disengaged?

The notion of disengagement is fascinating in that it has specific meaning for specific groups of people who are likely to use the term, a term that will neve be used by those individuals it seeks to describe. The users of the term are those who have to deal with the wide ranging consequences of that disengagement. Various groups of these work or operate in differing sectors of the broader social services spectrum with each group defining disengagement in the context of the work of its own agency. Young people, as a consequence, may be described as being disengaged from family, work, education or a plethora of other aspects of life that we, the keepers of important knowledge, know are vital to successful participation in life.

One of the most common results of this fractured response to young people facing major challenges is that the focus of the attempts at remediation is on sub-sets of the total cause rather than the cause itself. There is a vital question that is too frequently left unanswered: why is this young person disengaged? This is vital due to an important need among those working with disengaged youth not to replicate the cause of disengagement in attempting to deal with it.

Port School, a small independent school in Fremantle, Western Australia, has come to specialise in working with disengaged teenagers who are having difficulties in coping with mainstream schooling. The Commonwealth Government recently asked us to produce descriptors of the reasons for disengagement among our students: we provided 19! The reality is that many of these are simply different responses to the same causal factor. These causal factors, we have found, are: personal abuse of all kinds, frequently as a young child; being bullied; acrimonious family break-up; parental drug/substance abuse, mental illness and learning disabilities.

Our experience suggests that there is a common thread in the presentation and severity of disengagement: there is a significant correlation with problems or dysfunction within their own families or carers' homes. It is valuable to consider the role of parents and family when discussing a child's dysfunction as our experience shows us that very often what we are dealing with are the problems of the parents reflected in the behaviour of the child.

The Possibility of Explanation

The ways in which responsible adults respond to the child or young person very frequently predict the ways in which any disengagement develops. As each child enrolled at Port School is disengaged to some degree the cohort represents a valuable sample for some degree of phenomenological research. Port School staff members have a very good understanding of the ways in which disengagement manifests and the life experiences that contribute to it. This experience shows us how the behaviours of significant adults in the child's life affect that child. In discussing this phenomenon it must be remembered that the comments made concern typical causal relationships and that there will always be exceptions to the most common outcomes.

The way in which disengagement presents is most likely to reflect the experience of other people's behaviour that the child most frequently experiences. To illustrate this it is valuable to consider two different types of disengagement. We have experience of two students who have suffered sexual abuse at an early age. One displays extreme levels of disengagement with frequent aggressive and angry outbursts. The other presents with very few indicators of disengagement (however, this would change very quickly away from the carefully created supportive environment of the school). The only identifiable difference between the two is the ways in which the respective carers respond to problematic behaviour. In the case of the former relationships at home are verbally abusive with anger and threat being used to control behaviour. The second student's family are supportive and loving in spite of enormous social and intellectual barriers to their ability to achieve this.

It takes far more than these two examples of the range of disengaged behaviours to even suggest there is a common thread operating. I have used these, merely as examples to illustrate what we have observed in hundreds of adolescents over the last five years. It is these observations that lead to a belief that the nature of family or carer relations have a significant impact on the way in which disengagement manifests. Unfortunately, having this information does not help to avoid disengagement. Rather it helps workers in the field to understand its causes. In turn this has no value unless this understanding can be applied to the problem to advise strategies that can help address the problems and disadvantages caused by behaviours associated with disengagement.

Dealing With Disengagement at School

If we accept these causes of behaviours associated with disengagement it becomes necessary to attempt to identify the social situations in the young person's life that are similar to negative family behaviours that exacerbate the responses he or she makes. Unfortunately, the one place at which all young people are expected to spend a very large proportion of their lives inevitably replicates many of the dysfunctional factors that elicit the negative behaviours.

Because schools, in the main, are designed to work on an economy of scale and consequently bring large numbers of young people together there is a pressing need to initiate procedures of control. Without control, bringing hundreds of adolescents together at the same time would be almost certain to very rapidly lead to a state of aggressive anarchy. It is not by accident that Golding's Lord of the Flies (1954) strikes a strong chord with young and old alike. The procedures of control inevitably lead to a certain degree of conflict: "Don't run!" when an energy filled adolescent wants to let off steam, "Don't push!" when he is eager to arrive, "Don't dawdle!" when he wants to avoid the destination. These simple and mostly innocuous controls create a little resentment and consequent defiance and it is this that generates the serious conflict. It is worth considering that conflict perfectly describes the defining aspect of communication sofrequently seen in the disengaged youth's family and social life.

We can deduce from this that a mainstream school with its large size and lists of rules could not be better designed to stimulate aggressive responses in disengaged young people. Having reached this conclusion how can we respond? Almost every developed nation requires young people to participate in education. For the vast majority the only way this can be done is through attendance at a school. In addition there is a range of research data that tell us that the longer young people stay at school the better their subsequent life-chances. For these reasons merely opting out is not acceptable and if this option is taken research also tells us that life-chances will be further compromised (see Marginson 1993).

The only possibility is an alternative type of school for disengaged youth, one that actively seeks to identify and eliminate the points of conflict that most schools see as being desirable, if not essential. Port School is such an institution, enrolling students referred by the Department of Child Protection, Juvenile Justice, District Education Office's attendance and student services sections, high school principals and parents coming to their wits end trying to find a school their child can cope with.

As the majority of enrolling students have a history of achieving very little success in education, the school's core belief is that everyone is good at at least one thing. The school must identify this one thing and encourage the success that is gained from it with the intention of developing the success to encompass other areas of the school curriculum. Clearly, this is not an adequate basis on which to run a school for students at risk but it does provide a guide to making decisions about the other procedures that have to be implemented to allow the school to work.

Most conflict in schools occurs between staff and students when there is a requirement to modify behaviour, whether this behaviour relates to simply sitting quietly and getting on with a learning task or not punching another student. Almost every aspect of working with young people in a school involves the expectation of a change of behaviour. In the vast majority of these cases there is no problem as this is a normal part of daily social behaviour. However, the disengaged child has a much lower tolerance to what he or she would see as "being told what to do" and even simple requests can quickly develop into extreme conflict situations. As not asking students to do or not do things is not an option in a school another strategy to avoid this situation arising has to be found. The most effective way we have found lies in a strategy that is repeatedly espoused in behaviour management texts: building positive relationships. Unfortunately, this is nigh on impossible in mainstream schools due simply to the pressure of numbers: it is not possible to develop positive relationships with the 100 to 180 adolescents that most high school teachers work with each week. With disengaged young people all the adults that work with them must have a positive relationship with them. The only way this can be achieved is in a small school: 50 students maximum, with small classes: less than ten students but preferable half that number.

If this can be achieved a much greater level of success is attainable but there are simple things that experience shows improves the chances even more:

• removing institutionalised points of conflict (school rules) such as uniforms, arbitrary rules eg. no hats in class, hierarchical forms of address, eg. Sir or Miss when students are called by their first name;

• giving and expecting respect

• reducing school hours (ask a high school teacher with disengaged students how effective the last lesson in the day is!);

• providing breakfast

While simple sounding, every one of these become more difficult as the size of the school increases. The implication of this is that education departments need to make special provision for disengaged young people as the schools they provide (at least here in Western Australia) can not successfully provide for their educational needs.

On a per capita basis the cost of the government sector doing this would be in the region of four to six times that of educating an "average" student and consequently is unlikely to followed through in a committed way. However, there is an alternative: small independent specialist schools that gain additional funding from government, not only in recognition of the educational value but also the savings to other agencies who become less likely to deal with these young people when they have reached the point of being unable to continue attending school. Research in the UK suggests that the cost to society of one adolescent not attending school is £64,000 ($142,000) for a range of government department services, insurance and repairs and maintenance (Brrokes, Goodall & Heady2007). Even a small fraction of the savings a small specialist school for disengaged young people could generate would fund that school more than adequately.

Conclusion

Disengagement in young people has enormous costs attendant upon it, for the individual, for friends and family, for government departments and for the wider community. With an understanding of the causes of this disengagement, action can be taken to address the problem as the knowledge of what action is both feasible and effective exists in some sectors of the education community.

As with so many aspects of working with deeply set and difficult problems faced by individuals effective action is both contentious and expensive. The benefit for the individual of effectively addressing the problem should, in itself, be sufficient justification for committing to the expenditure. When savings to the wider community can be demonstrated it becomes clear the cost of not taking action puts an imposition on society that should not be countenanced. Sadly, for reasons that may include prejudice against young people who do not present as "nice" and compliant there is little commitment from governments and community leaders to make a start.

Port School is one of a handful across the country that has worked in this climate of indifference and even hostility to try to make a difference for a small number of disengaged young people. The degree of success being achieved is what makes it worth carrying on. The time must, surely, be approaching when the value of what these schools are doing is recognised and their management will be able to concentrate on making the schools even better rather than frantically negotiating with bureaucrats to maintain sufficient funding to remain open.

References

Brookes, M, Goodall, E & Heady L (2007), Misspent Youth: the cost of truancy and exclusion, New Philanthropy Capital, London.

Golding, W. (1954), The Lord of the flies, Faber & Faber, London.

Marginson, S (1993), Educational Credentials in Australia: Average Positional Value in Decline, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

About the Author

Dr Peter Roguszka has been principal of Port School for five years. Prior to that he worked in various teaching roles in government schools in WA, NT and the UK.

Port School is a small independent school specialising in working with "at risk" adolescents. Over the years programs have been developed that have proven to be very effective with many students successfully transitioning into work or further education.

---

Share this Page!