voices of disaffected pupils: implications for policy and practice

British Journal of Educational Studies, ISSN

0007-1005

Vol.

52

, No.

2

, June

2004

, pp

166–179

166

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

VOICES OF DISAFFECTED PUPILS: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

by

Kathryn Riley

,

London Leadership Centre, Institute of Education, University of London

and

Jim Docking

,

Independent Consultant

ABSTRACT: Although recent government initiatives have drawnattention to the importance of listening to young people, attempts topay attention to their views about their education experience arerare. Drawing on two studies of disaffected and disadvantaged pupils,this article analyses what can be learned from taking their views intoaccount.

Keywords: disaffection, pupil voice, teaching and learning

1.

Introduction

In 2002, a group of pupils made history by appearing before aParliamentary Group examining whether the UK should create aHuman Rights Commission. The pupils used the occasion to articu-late their experiences of discrimination and violations of humanrights and to urge that a Children’s Rights Commission should beappointed (

Guardian,

11 June 2002). At the same time, Whitehallpublished plans to ask a group of 14 to 20 year-olds to advise minis-ters. The DfES, one of the departments involved, made clear itwanted to consult youngsters from ethnic groups at risk of under-achieving and to conduct a survey of pupil attitudes in challengingschools (DfES Press Release, 12 June 2002).

At school level, two major initiatives have emerged that suggestthe pupil voice is to be given greater prominence. The first is theintroduction of citizenship programmes into the National Curricu-lum. The second involves proposals to consult pupils in Ofstedinspections, an idea strongly supported by David Bell, chief inspectorof schools (

TES

, 3 May 2002) but treated more guardedly by theunions (

TES

, 21 June 2002). Meanwhile, Summerhill became the

VOICES OF DISAFFECTED PUPILS

167


first school in the country where inspectors are legally required tolisten to students’ views (

TES

, 12 July 2002).Despite the growing focus on pupil voice, little research has looked

specifically at the perceptions of children from homes in sociallydisadvantaged areas, although some researchers have comparedthe responses of pupils from different home backgrounds (Hendry

et al

., 1993; Smith and Tomlinson, 1989). An extensive analysisof attitude to school among 2,250 top primary and first-yearsecondary pupils in England and Wales (Keys

et al.

, 1995), con-cluded that the majority of pupils liked school and school work (girlsslightly more so than boys) though about 10 per cent held negativeattitudes. Moreover, although the younger pupils were slightlymore positive than the older ones, perceptions did not dramaticallydeteriorate after transition to secondary school. More recently,Jeffrey (2001) conducted a detailed qualitative analysis of the per-ceptions of pupils in a ‘deprived school’, and found that childrenas young as nine or ten could make informed and perceptive obser-vations of classroom teaching and learning, and could recommendimprovements.

The case for involving school students and young people indecision-making that affects their education and welfare is based onmoral, physiological, social, educational, pragmatic and democraticconsiderations (MacBeath

et al.,

2001). Levin (1999) has put forwardfive pragmatic arguments for involvement – that doing so facilitatesthe effective implementation of change, makes reform efforts moresuccessful, can help mobilise staff and parent opinion in favour ofreform, is a pre-condition for constructivist learning, and is funda-mental to all improvement since students are the producers ofschool outcomes. Pollard

et al.

(2000) have suggested that recognis-ing the value of pupil perspectives will help teachers understand thedisparity between ‘curriculum as intended’ and ‘curriculum as experi-enced’. However, as Rudduck and Flutter (2000) point out, whilethe voice of the pupil can bring about enhanced levels of attainmentand commitment, we also need to question the

motivation

behind thepupil voice movement: ‘Are we “using” pupils to serve the narrowends of a grades-obsessed society rather than “empowering” them byoffering them greater agency in their schools?’ (p. 82).

If pupils are to have a greater voice in school decision-making, weneed to be prepared to address the matters they raise. What can weexpect them to say? What are the issues about which pupils today feelmost positive and most concerned? What, in particular, are the viewsand experiences of disaffected students?


168


2.

Disaffected Pupils: Two Locations but Similar Stories

In this article we try to answer these questions by drawing on findingsfrom two studies. The first, conducted in 1998–2000 in partnershipwith Lancashire, aimed to give the county a fresh perspective onpupil disengagement. For our second project (carried out in 2001–02 in a large authority in the south of England, alias

Southshire

), wewanted to examine the extent to which the key findings of the firststudy would be confirmed if we took a large sample of pupils inschools located in areas of high social deprivation and extended theage-span to include primary school children.

Study I

–

Lancashire

When we began our exploratory work in Lancashire, we wanted to knowtwo things: first, what forced the different ‘camps’ into blame mode:Teacher/headteachers –

If only s/he (the recalcitrant pupil) would come toschool more regularly

; Parents –

If only the teachers would listen

;

and

Pupils–

If only the lessons weren’ t so boring.

Second, could things be different?Our study unearthed the frustration and mistrust between dis-

affected students and their teachers, and between the parents ofthose pupils and teachers (see Riley and Rustique-Forrester, 2002).The pupils saw themselves at the bottom of the heap, labelled byteachers as ‘thick’, ‘stupid’ not wanted in the school. Once they hadgot into a downward spiral of bad behaviour, exclusion, and non-attendance, they thought they had little chance of improving theirprospects. They were dissatisfied with the physical environment oftheir school, as well as the teaching and learning, and their disen-gagement with the received curriculum was aggravated by a frustra-tion with traditional styles and methods of teaching (Riley, 2002).Working across Lancashire with 45 pupils in pupil panels – organ-ised in partnership with the Education Welfare Service, and held inlocal hotels – they drew pictures with powerful imagery suggesting,‘I am very sad’, ‘stressed out’, ‘lonely,’ ‘depressed’, ‘on my own’.For many, school was a profoundly sad and depressing experience.Few pupils regarded school as a place for growing, learning newinformation, or expanding their future options. They could acknow-ledge the ways in which their behaviour contributed to the build up oftensions in the classroom and the demands on their teachers (whomthey described as ‘stressed out by teaching’) and knew they had tochange but did not know how (Riley and Rustique-Forrester, 2002).

Their parents experienced communication with schools as beingclosed and unfriendly and saw the attitudes of teachers and the


169


punitive practices of many schools as being the biggest barriers tore-engaging their children in learning. Teachers themselves shareda number of the same concerns about the impact of over punitivebehaviour policies and about the existence of a small group of

dis-affected teachers

who were disenchanted with teaching and did nottreat their pupils with respect.

We learned many lessons from our work in Lancashire – aboutrelationships, about teaching and learning and about the school andpolicy climate. We concluded that the balance needed to shift awayfrom behaviour management to teaching and learning in ways thatrecognised the diverse ways in which children learn, as well as thefragmented nature of schooling for so many. Our study also identi-fied the common agreement about important issues. Pupils wantedto be mentored. Teachers wanted to spend more time with indi-vidual students. Parents, pupils and teachers welcomed positive beha-viour policies based on mutual respect.

Study II – Southshire

In Southshire we focused on three questions: (i) What are the per-ceptions of students? (ii) More specifically, what are the perceptionsof the most disaffected students? (iii) How do the students’ percep-tions compare with those of school staff ?

The questionnaire

Having piloted the student questionnaire, we then administered itto schools in wards in

Southshire

with the highest levels of socialdeprivation, according to the multiple deprivation formula used indetermining allocations from the Children’s Fund. The question-naire was designed to tap perceptions of key aspects of school lifeand work, including rules and discipline, teacher–student relation-ships, standards of student behaviour and support from parents.Most of the items invited students to express their feelings using afour- or five-point scale. For example, in one set of items, they wereinvited to indicate their strength of agreement in relation to a seriesof statements: ‘On the whole I think I am making good progress inmy school work’, ‘School work is worth doing’, ‘My school has sens-ible rules’, ‘I usually feel safe in the playground’. Students were alsoasked to say whether their parents/guardians/carers supplied vari-ous kinds of support: for example, whether they ‘take an interest inhow I do at school’. Other items focused on behaviour, disciplineand attendance. Respondents were also asked to say whether theyfound most school work ‘interesting’, ‘OK’, or ‘boring’. Additionally,


170


open items invited students to write about the things they liked ordisliked most about their school.

A parallel questionnaire was prepared for teachers whichattempted to ‘mirror’ items in the student questionnaire. For exam-ple, the item ‘This school has sensible rules’ corresponded to thestudent item ‘My school has sensible rules’. Questionnaire analysiswas undertaken using the chi-square procedure.

Of the 44 primary and 20 secondary schools in Southshire, 18 pri-maries and 13 secondaries agreed to participate, and we receivedreturns from 3291 pupils and 361 staff (102 primary and 259 second-ary teachers). The response rates were 77 per cent for Year 6, 66 percent for Year 8 and 64 per cent for Year 10. Teachers’ response wasdisappointing: 49 per cent for primary schools and 40 per cent forsecondary. However, both student and staff returns representedschools in all the relevant wards.

Key findings from the questionnaire

The value of school

In view of the locations of the schools, a striking finding was thestudents’ highly positive responses to items concerning the ‘

worth-whileness’

of school work and the support they received from parents.More than eight in ten agreed or strongly agreed that ‘school workis worth doing’, while generally similar proportions said that theyworked as hard as they could at school and felt they were makinggood progress.

On parental support, more than nine in ten of each year groupagreed or strongly agreed that their parents, guardian or carer‘think it important for me to do well at school’ and ‘make it clearthat I should behave well in school’, while more than three-quartersin Year 10 and around nine in ten of Years 6 and 8 said that that theirparents always or nearly always ‘take an interest in how I do atschool’ and ‘make sure I do my homework’. We found no evidenceto support the conventional assumption that children from ‘deprivedhomes’ and their parents tend to place a low value on educationalachievement or be uninterested in their children’s progress atschool.

Pupils’ view of their teachers

Regardless of age, most students were decidedly positive about theirteachers’ efforts to set high standards of behaviour and work. Forexample, in each of the sample year groups, around 90 per centagreed that staff set them clear behavioural expectations, took action


171


when rules were broken (almost 90 per cent in Years 6 and 8; 75 percent in Year 10), made them work hard (over 80 per cent Years 6 and8, 73 per cent Year 10) and attempted to ensure that they completedtheir homework (90 per cent Years 6 and 8, 80 per cent Year 10).However, many older students voiced criticism of the style teachersadopted in reinforcing standards, confirming the trend noted in theYPLL survey (Hendry

et al

., 1993). As Figs 1, 2 and 3 illustrate, Year6 students were reasonably positive about school work, the school’sdisciplinary style and the number of school rules, confirming themore detailed work at this level by Pollard

et al

. (2000); but percep-tions deteriorated dramatically (and highly significantly in statisticalterms) as students worked their way up the secondary school, con-firming another trend noted in the YPLL study.

Figure 1: How students find school work

Figure 2: How students regard their school’s disciplinary style


172


In comparison with younger years, many in Year 10 were also crit-ical about the support and treatment they had received from teach-ers and the limited opportunities to express their point of view(Table 1). Less than a half in Year 10, compared with at least threein ten in Years 6 and 8, agreed that teachers kept them informedabout how well they were doing; the contrast was even greater withrespect to teachers praising students for good work. Although amajority of Year 10 agreed that most or all teachers helped them tounderstand their work and gave support, only about one in three feltthat most or all teachers ‘know and understand me’, listened to theirviews, and treated them fairly. These factors may help to explain whya quarter admitted to skipping lessons.

How bored pupils viewed their school days

We also looked at the responses from students who said they weregenerally bored with school work – over a quarter of Year 10 (seeFig. 1). As might be expected, these students responded significantlymore negatively (p < .000) than others in the year to a broad rangeof items concerning lessons and relationships with staff. For exam-ple, just 41 per cent of ‘bored’ Year 10 students, compared with 64per cent of the whole year, agreed that they were ‘usually happy atschool’; this group was also more dissatisfied with the school’s dis-ciplinary style (24 per cent, cf. 47 per cent of all the year) and lesslikely to agree that staff listened to their views (14 per cent, cf. 30 percent of all the year). However, although clearly less positive than stu-dents in general, a large majority of ‘bored’ students in Year 10 gavehigh ratings to items about the value of education, managing schoolwork, feelings of making progress and support received from par-ents. In short, most of the students bored with their lessons were not

Figure 3: Views about the number of school rules


173


turned off learning in general or unsupported by the parents; norwere most struggling with the difficulty of school work: rather it wastheir particular experiences at school that were the source of theproblem.

Gender differences in perceptions

Among students as a whole, girls were significantly more positivethan boys about many aspects of school life, a finding consistent withthe YPLL and NFER surveys (Hendry

et al.,

1993; Keys

et al

., 1995).

TABLE 1. Teacher–student relationships

BaseNo

teachersSome

teachersMost

teachersAll

teachersMost + Allteachers

‘Teachers tell me how well I’m doing’Year 6 655 6% 31% 35% 29% 63%Year 8 1,351 6% 34% 41% 18% 60%Year 10 1,237 9% 46% 36% 9% 45%

‘Teachers praise me when I do my work well’Year 6 656 6% 24% 36% 35% 70%Year 8 1,346 4% 28% 44% 24% 68%Year 10 1,240 7% 47% 35% 11% 46%

‘Teachers help me to understand my work’Year 6 657 1% 13% 31% 55% 86%Year 8 1,354 3% 24% 45% 28% 73%Year 10 1,235 3% 40% 44% 13% 56%

‘If I am stuck, I know the teacher will try to help me if I ask’Year 6 660 1% 14% 23% 63% 85%Year 8 1,348 3% 21% 37% 40% 77%Year 10 1,242 3% 31% 44% 23% 66%

‘Teachers in this school treat us fairly’Year 6 663 3% 19% 37% 41% 78%Year 8 1,362 5% 34% 43% 19% 61%Year 10 1,242 10% 55% 30% 5% 35%

‘The staff listen to our views’Year 6 658 7% 26% 32% 36% 68%Year 8 1,357 7% 35% 37% 21% 58%Year 10 1,238 18% 53% 24% 6% 30%

‘I feel that teachers know and understand me’Year 6 659 9% 26% 39% 26% 65%Year 8 1,340 12% 39% 35% 14% 49%Year 10 1,230 21% 49% 25% 6% 31%

For each item, differences between Years 8 and 10 are highly significant (p < .000).


174


Although the percentage gap was often under 10 per cent, the trendwas consistent across a range of items. Girls tended to be happier atschool and more likely to believe that school work was worth doing,to find lessons interesting and to work hard in all lessons; they werealso more positive than boys in their perceptions of standards ofbehaviour in their school, disciplinary style and school rules; andthey were more likely to believe teachers thought well of their ownindividual behaviour. Boys, on the other hand, were more likely toadmit to skipping lessons, staying away from school and beingexcluded for bad behaviour; they were also less likely than girls to saythey sometimes felt shy in class discussion. Gender differences werenot significant, however, on most matters relating to teachers’responses to students’ behaviour and work, teacher-student relation-ships, and support from parents.

School differences

In matters relating to happiness at school, enjoyment of lessons,school rules and teacher–student relationships, students’ responsesdiffered widely according to the school they attended. For example,the number of students who agreed/strongly agreed that they were‘usually happy when at school’ varied in Year 6 from six in ten at oneschool to almost the entire year group at another, in Year 8 from halfthe students in one school to almost all the year in another, andin Year 10 from half the students in three schools to more thaneight in ten at two other schools. Three primary and two secondaryschools tended to attract particularly positive responses. These find-ings suggest heads and teachers can make a difference to the waystudents feel about school, even among schools in the most dis-advantaged areas.

Differences in views between staff and students

On many issues, we found that school staff tended to hold muchmore positive views than students (though one must be cautious,since the response rate was lower among teachers than students). Inparticular, they

over

-estimated the extent to which students likedschool and the interest that they took in their studies. For example,whereas just 16 per cent of Year 8 and 11 per cent of Year 10 said theyfound most school work ‘interesting’ as distinct from ‘OK’ or ‘bor-ing’ (Fig. 1), the average estimate among secondary staff was 40 percent, with an inter-quartile range of 20 per cent to 60 per cent. Staffalso had a much more positive view than students about theirschool’s rules and disciplinary style, as well as the extent to whichteachers praised students for good behaviour and work, helped


175


them to understand their work, responded to requests for help, keptthem informed about their progress, treated them fairly and listenedto their views.

However, staff

under-

estimated the value students attached toschool work, their feelings about playground safety and bullying,and the incidence of skipping lessons and unauthorised absence.For example, whereas 42 per cent of Year 6 said that during the pre-vious two weeks they had ‘been bullied or had nasty things said tothem’, the average estimate among primary teachers was just 11 percent, with an inter-quartile range of 1 per cent to 20 per cent. Staffwere also less positive than students about parental support, particu-larly the interest parents expressed in their children’s progress atschool, support over homework and attendance at parents’ evenings.

Understanding the Complexities

What did the pupils write about?

In spite of the mediocre or negative ratings that we found about les-sons, discipline and teacher–pupil relationships, in the open-endedsection, many pupils wrote favourably about their experiences ofschool. As would be expected, most pupils said they liked schoolbecause of the opportunities to socialise with friends and to engagein PE and sport. But many also commented warmly on the personalqualities of some teachers and their attempts to make lessons inter-esting. They mentioned, in particular, teachers who demonstratedfriendliness and kindness, listened to pupils’ problems and sortedout bullying, treated them fairly while controlling classes in a firmbut relaxed manner, praised them for good behaviour, helpedthem to understand their work and responded readily to individualrequests for help. Year 10 in particular liked teachers who ‘treatyou like an adult’ and encouraged pupils to present their pointof view.

In contrast, many pupils (especially in Year 10, and sometimes thesame ones who reported favourable experiences) also had negativethings to say. A few seemed generally disenchanted (e.g. ‘I don’tlike anything about this school’, ‘School is crap’, ‘It’s so boring’),but most articulated specific grievances. They particularly resentedteachers who talked down to them, blamed them unjustly, did notlisten to their side of the story, shouted at them or punished thewhole class and therefore the innocent as well as the guilty. Theywere also critical of teachers who, by default, impeded their learningby not responding to requests to sort out work problems, or did soonly grudgingly.


176


More generally, pupils disliked ‘boring’ lessons that involved nopractical activity or classroom discussion. A number in Years 6 and8 complained about bullying, but otherwise Year 10 was the mostcritical group. A common complaint – often expressed in bitter tones –was about school rules that were perceived as unreasonable, particu-larly those affecting types of footwear permitted (e.g. no trainers, ortrainers only if they were black), uncomfortable blazers, having towear ties in hot weather, restrictions on jewellery and makeup, girlsnot being allowed to wear trousers, boys having to keep their shirtstucked in. Some defended their criticisms on the grounds that therules did not seem to contribute to effective learning:

The teachers think that having your shirt tucked in will help youwork well.

As long as we’re learning, what does it matter what colour hairband we wear?

I work better in less close-fitting clothes.

What did the teachers write about?

Many staff correctly predicted reasons for pupils liking and dislikingschool and shared many of their ideas for making school moreenjoyable and interesting (e.g. better play facilities, more to do atlunchtime, and more practical work and interaction during lessons).But they were relatively more concerned than pupils with improve-ments to teaching accommodation, facilities and resources. Somesaid they would also like to see reforms in the curricular provisionfor Year 10 and took the view that pupils were entitled to have theiropinions listened to. However, a small number of secondary staffseemed in despair about what to do, sometimes assuming that it wasthe pupils themselves that must take the initiative if relationshipswere to be improved, and clearly having little time for policies aboutinclusion.

What did pupils say?

We held two pupil panels involving 18 students using the samemethod as in Lancashire.

Panel Group I

involved a group of youngpeople who were out of school and in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)and

Panel Group II

was comprised of disaffected pupils who were stillat school but could be described as hanging on by their finger tips.Both groups shared a common view that mainstream schools failedto see them as individuals, or to understand their learning needs.

Pupils in

Panel Group I

were extremely positive about the PRU,describing the staff as friendly and supportive, and the learning


177


experience rewarding and unlike anything they had known atschool. While they could not identify any school-based examples ofgood practice, they draw on a range of good experiences from thePRUs, including behaviour and learning strategies such as, ‘Timeout’ cards, Personal Achievement Targets, Personal Reminders(‘Remain calm in a sticky situation’). They inhabited a world char-acterised by mutual respect and attempts to make learning interest-ing and interactive.

By comparison, the pupils in

Panel Group II

inhabited the world ofthe school-room, typified by an ethos experienced as conformist anddemotivating. They were extremely critical about what they saw asthe unfair and inconsistent ways in which their school teacherstreated them. While both groups were aware that their own behav-iour needed to change, pupils from the PRU were clearer about howthey could do this.

3.

Some Implications for Policy and Practice

Schools today face a range of pressures. They are required to meettargets for pupil achievement, complete endless paperwork, follow aNational Curriculum that for some pupils seems unsuitable andimplement other structural innovations while also dealing with aminority of students who are intimidating or express unreasonableand unrealistic expectations. According to a recent study, all of thesepressures are having an impact on how teachers think about them-selves as professionals, demotivating them and hindering them fromdeveloping their skills (Riley, 2003). On the evidence presented inthis article, under stress, some teachers resort to humiliating stu-dents who present behaviour difficulties, exacerbating rather thanreducing problems of disrespect and disaffection and contributingtowards the creation of a group of young people who become disen-franchised from education.

The debate on social exclusion has paid insufficient attention to

how

schools and teachers might rethink and devise more inclusivepolicies and practices for teaching and learning, although guidelineson creating ‘inclusive’ schools have been published (Ofsted, 2002).Practitioners need to be given the opportunity to experiment withnew and radical ways of organising teaching and learning. Some ofthese may test the boundaries of the school day, or week, or even ourconcept of what a school looks like. Teachers are motivated whenthey can exercise their professional autonomy, collaborate withothers and spend time with pupils outside the ‘testing’ regime (Riley,2003). On the evidence of our work, schools have much to learn


178


from each other and from the staff from PRUs and would benefitfrom networks which enabled them to share good practice abouttackling disaffection and disengagement. As the Elton Report in1989 recognised over a decade ago, teachers sharing their experi-ences and strategies is a particularly effective means of improvingstudent–teacher relationships (DES, 1989).

In their study of insights from pupils in PRUs, Solomon andRogers (2001) observed, as we did, that disaffected students do under-stand that the work they were given to do in school was worth doingand not necessarily too difficult for them. What we have learnedfrom the two studies reported here is that many pupils find too manylessons arid and demotivating, forcing them into a passive learningrole. The problem is not so much curriculum content as the sheertedium of many lessons and the lack of opportunity for interaction,as pupils depicted in illustrating their school experience.

If schools are to improve student motivation for learning and toreduce behaviour problems and exclusions, there needs to be aneffective

dialogue between staff and students about how to achieve aculture of mutual respect, not just one that adheres to rules ofconduct. Just establishing a school council will not necessarily meetthese objectives if it effectively becomes ‘an exercise in damagelimitation rather than an opportunity for constructive consultation’(Rudduck and Flutter, 2000, p. 83), or democratic involvement(Critchley, 2003). If students are to become radical agents of change,then staff must be willing to ensure that conditions are met to bringabout what Fielding (2001; 2002) calls a ‘dialogic democracy’. Allvoices need to be heard, not just those of the more able and articu-late but also those who have learning difficulties and lack social con-fidence (Rudduck et al., 1996).

4. Acknowledgements

Many thanks to all the children, parents and school staff who con-tributed to these studies and to Ron Letch, David Rowles, ElleRustique-Forrester and Belinda Stott for their help in fieldwork andanalysis.

5. ReferencesCRITCHLEY, S. (2003) The nature and extent of student involvement in educa-

tional policy-making in Canadian school systems, Educational Management andAdministration, 31 (3), 97–108.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1989) Discipline in Schools (TheElton Report) (London, HMSO).


179© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

FIELDING, M. (2001) Students as radical agents of change, Journal of EducationalChange, 2 (2), 123–141.

FIELDING, M. (2002) Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: new departures or newconstraints in the transformation of 21st century schooling? International Sympo-sium of Student Voices and Democracy in Schools, New Orleans.

HENDRY, L.B., SHUCKSMITH, J., LOVE, J.G. and GLENDINNING, A. (1993)Young People’s Leisure and Lifestyles (London, Routledge).

JEFFREY, B. (2001) Valuing primary students’ perspectives, European Conference onEducational Research, Lille.

KEYS, W., HARRIS, S. and FERNANDES, C. (1995) Attitudes to School of Top Primaryand First-Year Secondary Pupils (Slough, NFER).

LEVIN, B. (1999) Putting students at the centre in educational reform, Journal ofEducational Change, 1 (2), 155–172.

MACBEATH, J., MYERS, K. and DEMETRIOU, H. (2001) Supporting teachers inconsulting pupils about aspects of teaching and learning, and evaluating impact,Forum, 43 (2), 78–82.

OFSTED (2002) Evaluating Educational Inclusion: Guidance for Inspectors and Schools(London, Office for Standards in Education).

POLLARD, A. and TRIGGS, P. with BROADFOOT, P., MCNESS, E. and OSBORN, M.(2000) What Pupils Say: Changing Policy and Practice in Primary Education (London,Continuum).

RILEY, K.A. (1998) Whose School is it Anyway? (London, Falmer Press).RILEY, K.A. (2002) Inclusion needs an overhaul, Times Educational Supplement,

1 November, p. 25.RILEY, K.A. (2003). Redefining the profession – teachers with attitude, Education

Review, 16 (2), 19–27.RILEY, K.A. and RUSTIQUE-FORRESTER, E. (2002) Working with Disaffected

Students: Why Students Lose Interest in Schools and What We Can Do About It (London,Paul Chapman).

RUDDUCK, J. and FLUTTER, J. (2000) Pupil participation and pupil perspective:‘craving a new order of experience’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 30 (1), 75–89.

RUDDUCK, J., CHAPLAIN, R. and WALLACE, G. (1996) School Improvement: WhatCan Pupils Tell Us? (London, David Fulton Publishers).

SMITH, D.J. and TOMLINSON, S. (1989) The School Effect: A Study of Multi-RacialComprehensives (Manchester, Policy Studies Institute).

SOLOMON, Y. and ROGERS, C. (2001) Motivational patterns in disaffected students:insights from pupil referral unit clients, British Educational Research Journal, 27 (3),331–345.

CorrespondenceProfessor Kathryn RileyThe London Leadership Centre10 Woburn SquareLondon WCIH ONSE-mail: [email protected]

voices of disaffected pupils: implications for policy and practice

Documents