Disaffection

The problem of disaffection

It is perceived amongst educators and researchers that disaffection is likely to increase behavioural problems and decrease attainment (Covell, 2010).  Disaffected and disengaged children, it is argued, are more likely to develop poor social habits, ie. drinking, smoking, drug taking and criminal behaviour (McKendrick, Scott & Sinclair, 2007; Bond, Butler, Thomas, Carlin, Glover, Bowes & Patton, 2007).  Disaffected children are also more likely to have poor employment trajectories (McKendrick, Scott & Sinclair, 2007), difficult relationships with others and higher suicide rates (Bond et al, 2007).  

There is a plethora of research that seeks to find explanations for pupil disaffection and ways to re-engage those children (see for example: Parsons, 1999; Brown & Fletcher, 2002; Desforges & Abouchar, 2003; Vulliamy & Webb, 2003; Flook, Repetti & Ullman, 2005; Snyder et al, 2005; Steer Report, 2005; OFSTED, 2006; Bond et al, 2007; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ofsted 2008; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand & Kindermann 2008; Steer Report 2009; DfE, 2010).  What is striking about this research, however, is that explanations for disaffection often depend on how disaffection has been measured and identified initially, but also importantly, the perspective presented on the suitability of the education or aspects of it that are provided.  

For instance, The Importance of Teaching white paper (2010) implies that disaffection is caused by poor quality teaching, lack of leadership and student indiscipline.  In comparison, Skinner et al (2008) suggest that poor motivational dynamics in children are the culprit with teachers merely acting as the facilitators.  Other research implies that lack of parental involvement or parental influence is to blame (Desforges & Abouchar, 2003) or problem behaviour of children (Cole, Daniels & Visser, 2003; Hallam, 2007).  Whilst other research considers that curriculum and assessment are at fault (Didaskalou & Millwood, 2007) or lack of student voice and participation (Hartas, 2011).  Still further research considers that issues of poverty, inequality and lack of social or cultural capital are to blame (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001).  A unique project carried out by the Norwich Area Schools Consortium (2001) argues that disaffection is context bound and a student’s rational response to certain conditions in the classroom (Elliot, Zarmorski & Shreeve, 2001).   

What is interesting is that children and young people may be disaffected in the school environment but this disaffection may not be evident in other areas of their lives (McKendrick, Scott & Sinclair, 2007).  Further, anecdotal evidence from some alternative forms of education ie. home education, suggests that disaffection is only a problem of school based education.  The begs the question of what exactly educators and researchers really mean by disaffection?   

First use of the word disaffection

The first uses of the word disaffection in English literature appear in 1604 and are linked to the crime of sedition which is described as the "notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority" (Breight, 1996, p89).  Disaffection, is often used later in the early 1800s in the Journal of the House of Commons to indicate hostility to the government or government institutions (State papers, 1654; Acts, 1821). 

Current use of the word disaffection

Disaffection is a term that is often used between disciplines to describe a problem of concern to educators about children’s engagement with school, education and learning.    The term disaffection has been used to describe children in discussions relating to school inclusion, challenging behaviour in the classroom, truancy and exclusion as well as educational achievement, enjoyment of school and emotional and psychological wellbeing (cf. Parsons, 1999; Gordon, 2001; Solomon & Rogers, 2001; Oakley et al, 2002; Cole, Daniels & Visser, 2003; Charlton, Panting & Willis, 2004; Humphrey, Charlton & Newton, 2004; Wakefield, 2004; Wearmouth, 2004; Hayden & Blaya, 2006; Hilton, 2006; Skinner et al, 2008).

In terms of current definitions a 1998 UK government report carried out by the House of Commons Education and Employment Committee appears to have been influential.  It defines disaffection as a ‘state’ or attitude that causes children and young people to be or become disengaged from education and training or “switched off from… the education and training opportunities available to them” (House of Commons Education and Employment Committee, 1998, pv-vii).   

The problem with current definitions of disaffection

Given the enormous and inter-disciplinary nature of the literature which uses the term disaffection in relation to compulsory education it is clear that it is a complex issue and recognising a child who is disaffected as well as supporting them is no easy task.  The field of education is not a straightforward matter and, given the numerous ways the concept of disaffection can be understood, indicates how political the field of education is.  It has been argued that the dominant measures of disaffection reside in a dominant culture of neo-positivism (cf Giroux, 2001) designed to promote the interests of education policy makers (Kincheloe, 2003).  A particular issue which can often be observed is that disaffection is often used interchangeably and synonymously with terms such as truancy, exclusion and disruptive or challenging behaviour (cf. Webb & Vulliamy, 2004; Hilton, 2006; Ofsted, 2008).  Other measures include children’s reported enjoyment of school (cf. Lord & Jones, 2006) or observations and reports of disruptive behaviour and children’s lack of ‘being on task’ in the classroom (cf. Ofsted, 2008).

However, these measures are not without their problems.  The research review carried out by Lord & Jones (2006), for instance, interpreted their findings as the overwhelming majority of children enjoying learning in school, although more so when it is active and participatory and when it takes account of autonomy.  However, much of the research included in the review relied heavily upon data gathered from structured interviews or questionnaires (see Lord & Jones, 2006) and it has been argued that these kinds of methodologies are adult-defined and represent a limitation in the answers that could be provided (cf Hill, 1997).

Statistics relating to truancy and exclusion are also problematic in determining the extent of disaffection.  In recent years there has been pressure from governments to reduce the numbers of children excluded from school.  However, rather than reducing the numbers of children who may be considered disaffected, this pressure has only served to move and hide the problem, with schools using alternatives such as internal exclusions which are not included in the figures (cf. Bradbury, 2004; Gillies and Robinson, 2012).  Changes in truancy figures also complicate the picture of disaffection in that, in an attempt to bring numbers down, many schools employ a dedicated attendance officer, there are often regular truancy sweeps by local authorities and parents can be fined or sent to prison if their children do not attend school regularly (Gordon, 2001; Anti-social behaviour Act, 2003, c38, part 3; The Education (penalty notices) (England) regulations, 2007; Department for Education, 2012).  This, therefore, does not mean that disaffection has gone away, rather it represents how statistics can be manipulated to create a particular picture of reality.

In terms of perceiving disaffection as problem behaviour Brown & Fletcher (2002) demonstrate how such a definition can be erroneous.  In an action research study exploring disaffection they defined disaffection, initially, as disruptive behaviour and went on to count as well as describe the different types of disruptive behaviour observed in class.  In common with the research by the Norwich Area Schools Consortium (cf: Elliot, Zamorski & Shreeve, 2001), Brown & Fletcher (2002) took an approach that involved consulting pupils and attempting to understand their behaviour through their eyes.  After consulting with their pupils they redefined the behaviours they had observed as disruptive engagement rather than disaffection.  They argued, that after investigating the instances of disruption in more depth, by clarifying the meaning of the disruption from not just their perspective but also the perspective of the child actors, they came to the understanding that their pupils were trying in their own way to engage with the teaching material and resources presented to them but were having difficulties for a range of different reasons.  Having recognised this Brown & Fletcher (2002) were able to reframe their own perceptions.  This altered their experience of the classroom and the pupils as well as their views about disaffection.  It seems then one of the problems with understanding disaffection in terms of disruption, for example, is the differing views that teachers and other staff have as well as children, to what constitutes disruption as well as their perceptions of the causes of the disruption.

This page is still in development.  Constructive feedback and comments always welcome...