BERA Annual Conference, Sept. 2003Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
Re-Engaging Disaffected Youth through Physical Activity Programs
Dr. Rachel A. Holroyd & Dr. Kathleen M. Armour, Loughborough University
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September 2003
Abstract
This paper reviews a range of literature that attempts to create links between the problems facing and resulting from disaffected, disengaged, and disadvantaged youth, and the role that sport and physical activity can play in ameliorating them. In many contemporary Western societies there are burgeoning academic, political, and public debates about the deleterious state of the nation’s youth. Significant social changes, characteristic of a period of late or high modernity, have led to the contemporary problematisation of youth transitions and a growing perception of ‘youth-at-risk’ (Furlong & Cartmel, 1997; Kelly, 1999, 2001; Tait, 2000). Moreover, the notion of a ‘problematic youth’ has been promoted and reproduced through media representations and has engendered a condition of ‘moral panic’ (Willis, 1990; Garratt, 1997). Thus, a focus on the notions of ‘youth in trouble’ or ‘youth as trouble’ can be seen to underpin concerns relating to a number of youth issues and practices in contemporary society; for example, youth unemployment, youth crime, truancy and falling attainment levels at school, as well as young people’s involvement in unhealthy or anti-social behaviours such as underage sex, drinking, smoking, or drug use. Moreover, these practices are perceived to point to a need for intervention programs designed to provide these ‘disaffected’ or ‘disengaged’ young people with appropriate guidance towards achieving the skills, values and attitudes required to make successful and acceptable transitions to adulthood.
The role of schools within this framework is of particular interest. It could be argued that the significant time that young people spend within this social arena means that it is an ideal setting in which to deliver effective interventions. Within England and Wales, the presence of PSHE and Citizenship Education in the curriculum are evidence of the degree to which the school context is perceived to offer an environment in which the interest of disaffected young people can be constructively re-engaged. Added to this, is a growing awareness of the potential of physical education and sport as mediums through which some disengaged students can be reached, and the development of relevant interceding programs (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Gatz et al, 2002; Halas, 2002). Specific examples of such interventions include ‘Sport Education’ (Siedentop, 1994), ‘Sport for Peace’ (Ennis, 1999) and the ‘Personal Social Responsibility Model’ (Hellison, 1995), addressing such issues as acceptance, co-operation, and conflict resolution in physical education settings. In this paper, we summarise evidence that points to the value of physical education and sport in reaching disaffected youth, and argue that there is clearly a precedent for the development of further programs that use physical activities, and indeed the medium of the physical education context, to re-engage disaffected students within schools and to enhance their personal, social and moral development.
Introduction
In recent years there have been burgeoning academic, political, and public debates concerning the increasing number of young people within schools and communities who are being identified as ‘disaffected’. Disaffection itself is a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon that is influenced by numerous interrelating factors, and can be manifested in various ways including disengagement from mainstream activities, disruptive or antisocial behaviour, and involvement in petty crime. Disaffection is currently being identified as a particular problem within schools, where it is seen to be characterised by increased levels of disruptive behaviour, truancy, and exclusions, as well as falling academic standards and non-participation. Through an examination of the literature in this area, this paper will identify some of the problems facing and resulting from disaffected, disengaged, and disadvantaged youth, as well as exploring the role that sport and physical activity can (potentially) play in ameliorating them. Sport and physical activities have traditionally been associated, particularly among the upper classes, with the promotion and reproduction of various character-building values, attitudes and morals (Holt, 1989; Mangan, 2000) and so, perhaps unsurprisingly, are viewed by many as a suitable vehicle for engendering pro-social behaviours. Furthermore, given the significance of sport and physical activity to many young people in contemporary society (e.g. Brettschneider, 1992), in particular boys, it is perhaps easy to understand why they should be lauded as a means of addressing disaffection among young people. This situation is not uncomplicated, however, for as a number of researchers have pointed out, although there is a popular belief that sport builds character, the evidence to support this is somewhat inconclusive. This debate, along with other key issues in and around the notion of ‘disaffection’ will be explored focusing on the following key areas; defining disaffection, examining the social experience for disaffected youth, outlining policy initiatives intended to re-engage disaffected young people and exploring the role that sport and physical activity may be able to play within this process.
Defining Disaffection as a Social Problem
There would appear to be a clear anxiety among those in positions of power and responsibility within society about the problematic behaviour of some individuals, as well as the need to maintain social inclusion and reduce social exclusion (Tait, 2000; Long & Sanderson, 2001). Central to this, particularly (although not exclusively) in relation to young people, is the issue of tackling disaffection. However, there are considerable difficulties in defining disaffection because researchers have employed numerous terms to define a cluster of behaviours, attitudes and experiences that could be covered by this overarching term. For example, labels such as ‘at-risk’ (Goodman, 1999), ‘disenfranchised’ (Riley & Rustique-Forrester, 2002; Kinder et al, 1995), ‘marginalized’ (Halas, 2001; Moote & Wodarski, 1997), ‘excluded’ (Steer, 2000), ‘underserved’ (Pitter & Andrews, 1997; Martinek, 1997), ‘troubled’ (Halas, 2001), ‘delinquent’ (Sugden & Yiannakis, 1982), ‘alienated’ (Halas, 2002; Moote & Wodarski, 1997) and, perhaps most commonly at present, ‘disengaged’ (Steer, 2000) have all been used to describe elements of disaffection. Moreover, the root causes of disaffection are also perceived to be numerous and interrelated, with some of the primary factors cited as being low self-esteem (e.g. Andrews & Andrews, 2003), poverty (Martinek, 1997; Steer, 2000), broken families (Heathcote-Elliott & Walters, 2000; Steer, 2000); drug use (Witt & Crompton, 1996; Goodman, 1999), unemployment (Long & Sanderson, 2001; Steer, 2000) and involvement in crime (Witt & Crompton, 1996; Martinek, 1997). Heathcote-Elliott and Walters (2000) have suggested that these causal factors can be viewed as falling into three broad domains; cognitive, behavioural and affective, and that ‘it is the interaction between these factors and other variables (e.g. personality, behavioural dispositions) which are at the roots of severe disaffection’ (p.6). Merton and Parrott (1999), however, are more cautious, and have asserted that there is a need to avoid reductionist explanations that place the blame on either the individual or society. In reference to this, Steer (2000) has noted:
‘The variety of ways in which disaffection can be expressed suggests what has been borne out by research into the issue: namely that disaffection is the outcome of a multiplicity of causes, often interrelated, but differing from case to case. Despite being given a common label, it is important to remember therefore that disaffected young people are not all a homogeneous group’ (p.2 emphasis in original)
Other researchers have also pointed to the complex, multi-causal, and often highly individualised nature of disaffection, and have highlighted the need not only to take account of diverse behaviours and attitudes but also the varying levels at which they are exhibited. Heathcote-Elliott and Walters (2000), for example, have conceptualised a ‘continuum of disaffection’ reflecting levels varying between active and passive and mild and severe, while a study by Gwent TEC (1997) has highlighted the need to recognise both the overtly disruptive and the ‘quietly disengaged’. In each case, the authors appear to reassert the importance of considering individual differences, and reinforce Steer’s (2000) assertion that disaffected young people should not be regarded in a uniform manner.
It has also been noted that ‘despite the lack of consensus in definition, one feature common to all reports on the subject is that being labelled disaffected has negative connotations for the individual’ (Heathcote-Elliott & Walters, 2000 p.1). It could be argued that the terminology used to describe disaffected young people is perhaps of little importance in relation to addressing the disaffection itself, but the frequency with which authors have highlighted the potential dangers of labelling young people in such a way indicates that this issue of semantics is far from insignificant (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Pitt & Andrews, 1997; Goodman, 1999; Halas, 2002). This has led to calls suggesting that practitioners and policy makers should make a distinction between ‘defining’ and ‘describing’ young people, and warnings that although using the label ‘disaffected’ may help to identify a problem ‘it should not blind us to the complexity of the causes that lie behind it’ (Steer, 2002 p.2). Moreover, Miller et al (1997) have argued that adults working with young people need to accept, understand and allow for the multi-dimensional lives of young people, and the stigmatising influence that labels such as ‘at-risk’ or ‘deviant’ can have on them.
The Case of the Disaffected Adolescent
The period of youth, more specifically adolescence, is traditionally considered a significant time in the human developmental process and for the construction of understandings of self in relation to others (Hendry et al, 1993). However, as a period in which individuals make the complex transition from childhood to adulthood, adolescence can also be perceived as a time of ‘natural’ disaffection in which young people are susceptible to crises in these construction processes and are likely to experience conflict or stress (Heathcote-Elliott & Walters, 2000). A number of authors have expressed concern that, in contemporary Western society, the extension of this transitional phase, in which young people are held between the restrictions of childhood and the increased freedom of adulthood for longer periods of time, has meant that the social experiences of youth are now characterised by intense contradiction and confusion (Kelly, 1999; Wyn & Dwyer, 1999; Smith, 2000, Steer, 2000). The increased individualisation of modern life, which is seen to have ‘dissolved’ traditional patterns of social reproduction (e.g. the structure of family networks), is itself perceived to have compounded this problem and increased the complexity of the personal and social development process for young people (Giddens, 1991; Beck, 1992; Heathcote-Elliott & Walters, 2000).
The contemporary problematisation of youth transitions has led to a growing perception of ‘youth-at-risk’ (Furlong & Cartmel, 1997; Kelly, 1999, 2001; Tait, 2000) and has intensified the regulation of, and the intervention in, youth practices and behaviours by authoritative powers. According to Tait (2000), this has resulted in a pervasive condition of ‘governmentality’, in which young people are encouraged to engage in self-shaping practices in order to comply with societal norms of appropriate or acceptable behaviour. As some researchers have noted, a ‘moral panic’ regarding young people, focussing on the notions of either ‘youth-in-trouble’ or ‘youth-as-trouble’, would certainly seem to underpin concerns about a number of youth practices in contemporary society (Wilson & White, 2001). For example, the problematisation of youth unemployment or rising youth crime, as well as young people’s involvement in unhealthy or anti-social behaviours such as underage sex, drinking, smoking, or drug use, among others, are all apparent causes for concern. Moreover, they are perceived to point to a need for intervention programs designed to provide young people with appropriate guidance towards achieving the skills, values, and attitudes required to make successful and acceptable transitions to adulthood (e.g. Heathcote-Elliott & Walters, 2000).
As was noted earlier, such ‘multi-faceted problems’ (Goodman, 1999 p.10), in association with the rapidly changing social and economic climate of the UK, are perceived to be significant factors in youth disaffection (Sanders & Hendry, 1997). However, it should not be assumed that there is a direct/causal relationship between the complexity of young people’s social worlds and the demonstration of disaffected behaviour because, as a number of researchers have pointed out (Heathcote-Elliott & Walters, 2000; Wilson & White, 2001; Holroyd, 2003), the majority of young people are adept at managing an impressive range of demands and pressures without becoming disaffected.
Disaffection in Schools: A Growing Problem
In addition to an apprehension about the general behaviour of young people there have been concerns that disaffection is increasingly becoming a problem within schools. To support this claim politicians, academics and professionals have pointed to statistics on behavioural issues such as truancy, exclusion and educational attainment. For example, it has been argued within recent parliamentary debates that the rate of truancy, as measured by the number of young people who skip school, has risen by 15% since 1997, and 25% in secondary schools specifically ( The number of formal exclusions from school has also seen a rise in recent years, with recently released figures indicating that 9540 young people were permanently excluded from schools last year, an increase of 4% between 2000/1 and 2001/2 (DfEE, 1999; DfES, 2003). These figures are particularly worrying in the context of research which has shown that two out of three young people who are permanently excluded from secondary school will never return to full-time mainstream education (McConville, 1998). For those who are attending school, however, the picture is not necessarily brighter. For example, it has been suggested that schools are ‘failing’ large numbers of their students and that up to 10,000 young people are simply ‘dropping out’ of the system at GCSE level (Clare, 2003), meaning that low levels of educational attainment are now common among 15 – 30% of school age young people (OECD, 1996).
Numerous reasons have been cited to account for the incidents of disaffection evident in schools. For example, increased pressures and competition caused by the accountability of schools and teachers with the advent of league tables, as well as the reinforcement of the standardisation of teaching and pedagogy through national assessments, exams and curriculum, have been suggested as key factors in generating disaffection among both staff and students (e.g. Riley, 1998; Lovey, 2000; Riley & Rustique-Forrester, 2000). In addition, a number of researchers have pointed to the difficulties caused by an inadequate or irrelevant curriculum which simply fails to engage young people (Goodman, 1999; Clare, 2003), as well as cultural conflict between home and school (Moote & Wodarski, 1997), a negative school environment (Heathcote-Elliott & Walters, 2000) and the ‘marketisation’ of schools brought about through recent reforms (Steer, 2000). Moreover, several researchers within the sociology of education have identified the school as a highly structured environment in which both space and time, as well as young people’s behaviour, are closely regulated (e.g. Kirk, 1999a; Kirk, 1999b; Wyness, 1999; Wren, 1999), and have suggested that young people’s resistance within school represents an attempt by them to seize power in a situation in which they are, essentially, powerless (Dillon & Moje, 1998).
Practical Steps to Targeting Youth Disaffection
The problem of disaffection is a long-standing one, and several researchers have noted that it has featured strongly in government policies across Europe since the 1970’s (Heathcote-Elliott & Walters, 2000; Andrews & Andrews, 2003). Closer to home, Long and Sanderson (2001) have commented that tackling disaffection is very much part of the UK government’s current agenda on social exclusion, providing the rationale for a great deal of their spending on sport and leisure. The need to address disaffection and social exclusion among young people is based upon a concern for a ‘lost generation’ which, having been failed by the education and employment systems, has disengaged from society. These young people have been referred to variously as: ‘NEET’ (Not in Education, Employment or Training), the ‘underclass’ or ‘Status Zer0’ youths (Williamson, 1997), and it was believed that they totalled approximately 161,000 in 1999 (Social Exclusion Unit, 1999). Various initiatives and policies have been designed to support and re-engage these young people, for example New Start, New Deal, Learning Gateway, the Connexions Service, Positive Futures, Youth Offending Teams, Youth Inclusion Programmes, Neighbourhood Support Fund (see Steer, 2000 for further information on these initiatives), and pupil referral units (PRUs). In addition, there are several programs, funded both by government departments and independent organisations, that have been developed to occupy young people in positive (and pro-social) ways in their spare time; e.g. the ‘Splash’ schemes and activities run through the Youth Charter for Sport ( or Youth Justice Board (
Tackling Disaffection through Physical Education
Given the developmental goals of the school curriculum, as well as the considerable amount of time that young people spend within educational institutions, it could be argued that schools are significant sites through which to deliver such initiatives. Indeed, the presence of PSHE and Citizenship Education in the curriculum within England and Wales provides some evidence of the degree to which the school context is perceived to offer an environment in which the interest of disaffected young people can be constructively re-engaged. Moreover, when considered alongside the belief that sport and physical activity can help to develop pro-social skills, it is possible to understand the growing appreciation of school physical education as a core context through which disaffection can be challenged. Indeed, several programs that have been specifically designed to develop acceptance, co-operation, responsibility and conflict resolution through physical education settings are already being employed within schools. ‘Sport Education’ (Siedentop, 1994), for example, is a program that uses carefully structured game situations to help encourage young people to develop physical and organisational skills, as well as build an awareness of fair play, self-responsibility and respect for other players and officials. Sport Education is believed to develop a number of pro-social skills, and it has been argued that programs utilising this model can contribute significantly to the personal growth of young people.