Comparing early leaving across Spain and England: variation and commonality across two nations of high and low relative early leaving rates

ABSTRACT

This paper applies a conceptual framework of five key categories (personal challenges, social relationships, family circumstances, institutional features of school/work, and structural factors) to consider the comparative contexts of risks to Early Leaving (EL) in key regions within Spain with a high national level of EL and England, a nation with low relative EL. The two-country comparison draws from 77 interviews and focus groups with 309 educational stakeholders across 21 settings involved in the European Commission funded project [Orienta4YEL]. Key findings are elicited in highlighting the points of convergence and dissonance within data patterns. Notwithstanding the high level of interaction between them, the most significant risk categories identified were ‘personal challenges’ linked to ‘family circumstances’ for Spain and ‘structural factors’ for England. Key differences can be partly attributed to the different vulnerability groups of at-risk (of EL) young people, as well as differences in the geographical and socio-cultural regions. There is, however, convergence in findings with respect to the key structural factors seen to be barriers to EL, specifically with respect to the impact of socio-economic disadvantage and challenges raised with regard to the educational system and educational policies, as well as the role of young people’s relationships.

KEYWORDS:

• Early school leaving
• NEETs
• education
• disadvantage
• risk factors
• comparative study

Introduction

Early Leaving as a European challenge

While there are competing definitions, we define Early Leavers as young people aged 12 to 21 who do not finish – or who are at risk of not finishing – lower secondary education (compulsory) education as well as those who finish lower secondary education but do not make the transition to upper secondary education. Early Leaving (EL) has been identified as a priority target for action within Europe as underpinned by the European policy cooperation framework (Eurostat 2020): the share of early leavers from education and training in the EU should not be more than 10%.

While 16 EU countries have currently met their national target, the latest figures reveal that 11 member states, including Spain and the UK, have not (Eurostat 2020). Headline indicators suggest a somewhat bleaker picture of EL in Spain compared with England. At 17.3% (Eurostat 2020), Spain has the highest EL rate in Europe; it is over 6 percentage points higher than in England (ONS 2020). In order to consider the limits to a comparative analysis of EL between Spain and England, it is important to highlight that the United Kingdom does not recognise the term ‘early leaver’ or ‘early school leaver’. Instead, the official policy designation is a person ‘not in education, employment, or training’ (NEET)¹ According to most recent figures (ONS (Office for National Statistics) 2020) there were currently 771,000 young people aged 16–24 who were NEET in England, or 11.2% (ONS (Office for National Statistics) 2020, 2) of young people overall, an increase of 8000 from the previous quarter (Oct–Dec 2019). Despite this rise and notwithstanding the impact of COVID-19, yet to be calculated, the levels of NEEThood have been declining since 2011, but have remained ‘relatively flat’ in England since 2017 (ONS (Office for National Statistics) 2020, 3). This somewhat optimistic picture in England shadows a key issue regarding the ‘hidden’ or ‘unknown’ population groups. In order to be captured in the UK government’s two measures for NEET status, young people must be in receipt of some kind of state welfare benefit. The significance of this distinction is further developed by Maguire (2021, in this special issue), who among other critics (e.g. Cook 2013) has warned that there are a significant number of young people who are not in education employment, or training, but who fail to be captured by either of the government indicators. Recent evidence suggests this figure could be as high as 50% of young people (Maguire and McKay 2016).

In Spain, the incidence of EL has decreased nearly 13 percentage points over the last decade, from 30.9% in 2009 to the lowest rating the country has had in 2019 (17.3%) (Eurostat 2020). Despite recent policy developments, Spain continues to be a significant cause for concern within Europe. Firstly, it has the highest EL rate and the second-highest proportion of individuals who are both NEET and EL (EU 2019). Almost 2 out of every 10 young people do not continue studying once lower secondary education is completed, continue to upper secondary education but leave before graduating, or are unemployed (Eurostat 2020; Tarabini and Jacovkis 2018). Secondly, Spain presents highly pronounced regional disparities (Bayón-Calvo 2019).

The empirical data presented in this paper was collected as part of the EU-funded [Orienta4YEL] project, a three-year research study aiming to explore EL in order to develop and evaluate a toolkit of interventions across five nations in Europe: Spain, Portugal, Germany, Romania and the UK. This paper reports on a two-country comparison of Spain and the UK, in drawing from a total dataset of 77 interviews and focus groups with 309 educational stakeholders across 21 settings. In conducting cross-national comparative research, we must be mindful of intra-national variations (Green 2003). Accordingly, we situated our study within key regions identified with high numbers of EL/NEET. In the case of the Catalan region, the EL incidence is 19%; that is nine points above the European average and the highest rate in the last five years (Departament d’Educació 2020). Furthermore, recent research (e.g. Cedefop 2016) suggests the problem is currently underdiagnosed (Tarabini et al. 2017). In England, local authorities are only required to collect NEET data on 16 and 17 year olds due to their requirement to be participating in Education or Training. In Windy county, within the South West of England, NEET figures for this cohort is 89.2%, which puts it in the 5th quintile (March 2018). Only 2% of young people are ‘known’ Early Leavers (for whom there is data available), for the remaining 9.3% for whom destinations and activity is not known.

Having offered an overview of EL rates in both Spain and the UK, we will turn to a comparative analysis of EL and NEET policies in England and Spain before unpacking the differences across both nations of one of the biggest factors affecting EL: each country’s schooling system. Thirdly, in acknowledgement of the myriad of factors that can lead to NEEThood (beyond the schooling system), we provide an overview of the social, structural and contextual influences which can affect EL. Finally, we conclude the introduction by presenting a holistic framework for exploring EL.

A comparative analysis of the policies to tackle EL in England and Spain

The Spanish education system faces a number of challenges associated with Early Leaving; to reduce the rate of EL as well as to increase the number of graduates and people with post-compulsory qualifications. The key route taken to achieve this has been to improve the country’s education level. Some of these challenges are rooted in the high EL rates in Spain, twinned with a relatively ‘low’ level of education across the nation (this is particularly the case given that young people can formally exit the school system aged 16).

When Spaniards graduate from lower secondary education, they can continue their training by choosing between a vocational route (intermediate vocational training) or an academic one (baccalaureate). The first option is seen as a transition into the labour market -qualified/skilled work labour; the second is the preferred option for young people aiming to pursue higher education. Historically, vocational routes have been perceived to be less attractive than academic ones, even though there has been an increase in young people choosing vocational pathways in the last decade (Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional 2020). Despite recent efforts to homogenise the populations who select either the vocational or academic routes, the Spanish education system continues to manifest patterns of inequality regarding socioeconomic status, gender and ethnicity. While Spanish-born nationals, women, and those from higher socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds feature predominantly in academic pathways, young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, migrants, and young men are overrepresented in vocational routes (Tarabini and Jacovkis 2018).

Two educational reforms have been carried out in recent years: the 2006 ‘Organic Educational Law’ (LOE²) and the 2013 ‘New Organic Act for the Improvement of the Quality of Education’ (LOMCE³). Furthermore, in 2008, the ‘Plan to Reduce Early School Leaving’ (PRESL⁴) was published and was subsequently revised in 2015 to incorporate guidelines from the Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in the field of education and training (ET2020).

These efforts to address EL are considerable, particularly given Spain is one of only eight European countries to have a national strategy tackling EL (European Commission and Eurydice 2014). The actions outlined in these policies include career guidance, flexibility and permeability of education pathways, second-chance education, language support, and data collection and monitoring. Of all these measures, the introduction of alternative pathways and second-chance measures are exemplary.

Alternative pathways were introduced via the ‘Initial Vocational Training Programmes’ (IVTP⁵); a programme designed to engage 16–21 years-olds who abandoned their studies without achieving a General Certificate of lower secondary education. The one-year course has a clear vocational orientation, combining intensive training with unpaid professional internships. Once the 2013 LOMCE educational policy was approved, the vocational IVTP training was replaced by the ‘Basic Vocational Training’ (BVT⁶) programme. BVT allows Early Leaving students to access vocational education after a two-year programme that substitutes the secondary education qualification. Accordingly, young people can start to pursue vocational pathways from age 15 by joining BVT, instead of having wait until they turn 16.

Though the legislation outlined was launched at a national level, it is important to recognise that the Spanish Educational System is decentralised. Whereas policies on EL are coordinated by the General State Administration (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training), it is the regional governments (each with their own Departments for Education) who are responsible for the design, adaptation and implementation of national policies to their contexts. For instance, the regional government of Catalonia (in North East Spain) drew together all policies tackling EL into a single document in 2012: ‘Endeavour for School Success’ (‘Ofensiva de país a favor de l’èxit escolar’). This policy focused on the compulsory education stages, both emphasising the organisational and pedagogical aspects of schools and encouraging families to play a central role in school success. Research has suggested the educational trajectories of children are greatly determined by their family’s support, their involvement in school activities, and the value afforded to education (Tarabini 2015).

In contrast to Spain, England has no specific policy responsibility for tackling the issue of NEET young people outside of the statutory guidance introduced in 2013 underpinned by the Raising of the Participation Age of young people in England from 16 to 18 (DfE 2012). While young people in Spain are able to leave education and enter fulltime employment at age 16, the introduction of this legislation in 2013 requires young people in England to participate in education or training until their 18th birthday in one of three ways: full-time study in a school, college or with a training provider; full-time work or volunteering combined with part-time education or training leading to relevant regulated qualifications; or an apprenticeship, traineeship or supported internship (DfE 2016, 16). The statutory duty to fulfil this obligation is devolved to local government (DfE (Department for Education) 2016, 5) Specifically, local authorities must make arrangements for tracking mechanisms to identify 16 and 17 year-olds who are; a) participating in Education Employment and Training (EET); b) recognised as NEET; or c) for whom current activity is not known, in order that they may be identified and supported into re-engagement. Through the ministerial responsibility of the Department of Education, the UK government monitors local authorities in their tracking and support of 16 and 17 year-olds. To date, such measures have not resulted in a meaningful reduction in EL, as the latest data shows that the number of young people aged 16 and 17 identified as NEET has in fact risen to 4.5% (despite some fluctuations) since the introduction of this legislation, compared with only 4.2% in 2013 (ONS (Office for National Statistics) 2020).

While policies to improve the status of the skills systems in Spain are well advanced, in England they are newly emergent through the UK government’s stated commitment to raising the status of technical education (DfSIB/DfE (Department for Education) 2016). This policy signalled a new directive whereby young people will be able to choose between an academic or technical route at age 16. While the academic route is well established, the technical route has been streamlined to provide a common framework of 15 routes across all technical education (DfSIB/DfE, 8). The quality of technical qualifications is overseen by the employer-led Institute for Apprenticeships, whose responsibilities have been extended to all technical education (ibid). These training pathways require young people to choose one of two routes; Apprenticeship programmes, or a two-year college-based programme aligned to apprenticeships. From September 2020 the newly introduced VET pathways now comprise T-Level courses, which are equivalent to the 3-A levels undertaken through the academic route (DfE 2019). Certification from either technical route is nationally recognised at levels 2 and 3. Underpinned by the Technical and Further Education Act 2017, New Institutes of Technology have recently being introduced offering degree level apprenticeships at levels 4 and 5 through the establishment of New Institutes of Technology (DfE 2020). These changes follow Spain’s endeavour to provide clearer pathways for young people to navigate a VET route, as well as provide flexibility to move between an academic and vocational pathway. Such measures reflect a prevention approach to EL, but unlike Spain there has been less focus on a formalised re-engagement route to VET for those who drop out. Furthermore, in raising the status of VET through compulsory maths/English to level 2 status as a condition of funding (ESFA 2014), it could be questioned as to how accessible VET is in practice for those who seek an alternative to the academic model.

The persistent levels of NEEThood in both Spain and England,- despite recent policies that have been created to address it,- require us to consider what factors may influence, or shape, EL. In the following two sections, we firstly look at the schooling systems of both nations, followed by the social, contextual, and familial risks.

Factors that lead to EL in England and Spain

We will start by considering the prevailing ideologies governing schooling systems in England and Spain, given that research has highlighted school drop-out has been found to be less likely to be the consequence of a single event, but rather the cumulative result of negative experiences throughout young people’s schooling career (Lamb et al. 2010) where low achievement has been identified as the most significant predictive factor (Battin-Pearson et al. 2000).

As one of the most significant policies of the twentieth century, the Education Reform Act 1988 was widely lauded for transforming the educational system in laying the foundations for the neoliberal approach to educational policy making that we know today through the introduction of performative benchmarks whereby prescriptive and incremental learning objectives became the gold standard measure of learning as determined through national standardised assessment tests (known as SATs). Now determined both according to the individuals’ progression as well as benchmark performance indicators, SATs narrow criteria determine that children’s learning can be measured and compared nationally, in order to evaluate schools, authorities, teachers, and children. State schooling has since become increasingly marketised, most recently through the Academy programme, which currently represents approximately 77% of state funded schools (DfE 2021). Academy schools are independent schools, funded through central government as opposed to through the local authority. They are run by a governing body or trust as a non-profit making business, with the freedom to impose their own curriculum and control their own admissions. In summary, schooling in England has become a high-stakes and performative arena, and following the post 2008 economic crash has precipitated an era of austerity policymaking leading to a funding crisis in schools (NAHT 2018).

While a neoliberal logic can also be seen to have dominated the educational system in Spain over a similar timeframe, the operation is distinct when compared with England. Education in Spain operates by a devolved model whereby the political system comprised regional parliaments and governments known as ‘Comunidades Autónomas’ (Autonomous communities) reflect a distribution of political power leaning towards a federal state. Following the Education Act 1985 a series of policy imperatives have initiated a quasi-market in Spain, which has led to greater school autonomy, school choice and accountability in recent years, particularly in the regional government of Catalonia (Rambla, Valiente, and Alegre 2009; Olmedo 2013). This has resulted in the creation of social and educational ghettos in neighbourhoods experiencing high levels of immigration, whereby many public schools can have 80% of the student population from immigrant background. In contrast, Windy County⁷ features low levels of immigration and over 95% of residents identify as white, according to the last census. In contrast to England, Spain operates a semi-private model of schooling called ‘escola concertada’; schools which are funded jointly by the public administration (the regional government in the case of Catalonia) and by parents. This offers a ‘third’ choice of schooling for parents who may not otherwise be able to afford private education but wish to avoid the public schools to which their child may otherwise be assigned. Like England, the post-2008 economic crash reduced public spending on education, heralding an era of educational austerity.

A review of the educational policy contexts in England and Spain presents a schooling landscape fraught by performative pressures and competition for resources. While this may explain part of the relationship between low school achievement and drop out from a life course perspective (e.g. Alexander, Entwisle, and Kabbani 2001) it is important to consider the impact of social inequalities (Lavrijsen and Nicaise 2015) and familial (D’Addio 2007) factors in mediating the impact of low-achievement on school drop-out. Recent research has explored this association through the lens of school disengagement; a lens which considers EL to be both the culminating moment in the school disengagement process as well as its result (e.g. Tomaszewska-Pękała, Marchlik, and Wrona 2019). In this sense, EL is preceded by trajectories characterised by failure, demotivation, and absenteeism (Figuera, Freixa, and Venceslao 2012).

The processes of disengagement can also be explained by non-structural and non-academic issues, including individual/personal, sociocultural, and familial aspects (Battin-Pearson et al. 2000). Recent research (e.g., Haugan, Frostad, and Mjaavatn 2019; Romero and Hernández 2019) in Norway and Spain, respectively, outline risk factors linked to EL such as low levels of; familial and teacher support, school engagement, motivation, social and occupational expectations, and the ability to cope with stressful life events. In starting to develop a typology De Witte et al. (2013) identified that EL determinants are typically located within the individual, in schools, or in families. Díaz-Vicario, Armengol and Castro (2019) also consider the education system and public policies (systemic factors) as structural factors that can mediate the risk of EL.

A further potential cause for disengagement are personal risks factors. González-Rodríguez, Vieira, and Vidal (2019) conceptualise personal risk factors in two categories: ‘individual’ and ‘student’ ones. Factors impacting on the whole-person, -or what they call ‘individual’ variables, are a) gender and nationality (fewer young women and native-born people leave the education system – European Union 2019); b) physical and mental health (Cox and Marshall 2020; Melkevik et al. 2016; Valkov 2018); and c) young parents and combining school with a part-time job (Díaz-Vicario, Armengol and Castro 2019). ‘Student’ variables refer to difficult relationships with educators and/or peers in academic settings, an existing trajectory of absenteeism, low maturity level, low motivation, and linguistic competence (Aspelin 2012; D’Angelo and Kaye 2018; Díaz-Vicario, Armengol and Castro 2019). It is worthwhile noting that ‘individual’ and ‘student’ variables can co-exist, at times working in unison to exacerbate personal risks to EL.

Regarding socioeconomic and familial risk factors, young people from families in a low or precarious economic situations (poor quality housing, unemployed parents, low family income), as well as those in disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities, migrants) are more likely to become Early Leavers (Díaz-Vicario, Armengol and Castro 2019; European Parliament 2011). Family specific factors such as unstable family lifestyles, single parenthood, poor quality of life conditions, violence at home, and fragile family health can all increase the risk of EL (European Parliament 2011). Additional family risk factors encompass problematic parent–child relationships, parents not valuing school education, and a low level of parental education (Romero and Hernández 2019; Tarabini 2015). To conclude, whilst the risks to EL can be both diverse and complex, our list is not exhaustive: young people may exit education or training for other reasons as their individual situations and realities are vastly different.

A holistic framework for conceptualising the risks to Early Leaving

As this review of research into EL across Spain and the UK has highlighted, understanding the factors which come to bear on young people abandoning education or training is far from a straight-forward matter. In attempting to disaggregate the various influencers on EL we have outlined, our comparative study drew on and applied the taxonomy developed by Brown, Olmos, Costas Batlle and Gairin (2021, in this special issue). As an initial step to explaining why some young people become early leavers, it comprises five categories of risk: personal challenges, family circumstances, social relationships, institutional features of school/work and structural factors. This framework is explained below:

1. ‘Personal challenges’ which the child is born with, acquires, or experiences. This includes the young person’s health and abilities, view of themselves and their future, and any significant events, such as trauma or neglect.

2. ‘Family circumstances’, such as living in a low-income or workless household; familial cultural values, and the needs and availability of family members.

3. ‘Social relationships’, which refer relational challenges brought about through all types of relationships outside of the family, including with teachers, employers, peers and friends.

4. ‘Institutional features of the school and work-place’ such as aspects of the building or space, organisational policies, institutional norms, expectations and the resources available.

5. ‘Structural factors’ such as economic challenges at the local or national level, national education and work policies, and challenges caused by the educational system.

Following Brown, Olmos, Costas Batlle and Gairin (2021, in this special issue) it is important to highlight that not only do these individual categories reflect their own unique challenges of risk to EL, but they are also highly inter-connected, whereby risks created in one area produce, mediate or interact with those produced in other categories. This interconnection will become apparent later, in the discussion of this paper.

Methodology

This paper specifically addresses the findings generated from 77 interviews and focus groups with 309 educational stakeholders across 21 settings (in the UK and Spain only) carried out within the first year of the study (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of school leadership teams, teachers/trainers and students involved

	School leadership team and administration	Teacher/trainers	Students	Total
The UK	32	21	39	92
Spain	27	73	117	217
Total	59	94	156	309

Windy county (UK)

The UK research was carried out in one local authority in South West England: Windy county. As a predominantly rural county with an elongated and dispersed geographic shape, it has relatively poor transportation links. As a result of national government austerity measures, there is no local authority department team or person responsible for the overall issue of EL; the Council’s only remit is to encourage 16/17 year olds to remain in education or training. Consequently, there is poor access to educational provision across the County and support for young people is both scattered and mainly via fixed-term project funding.

Of the 11 settings included in the study, three were academy schools and two were specialist schools for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. Two of the settings were time-limited educational projects serving Early Leavers and those at risk of EL. One setting offered in-school educational support for children in care, and we also interviewed service leads working in the local authority, which offered employment-based training for NEET young people. All of the young people interviewed had been identified within their settings as either at-risk of disengaging with school, or were themselves Early Leavers. The key young person groups affected by EL within the region included; In care, from service families; Traveller/Roma/Gypsy families; Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)/Social Emotional, (or) Behavioural Difficulties (BESD); Young carers; Young Parents (especially young mothers); Mental health problems; Children in poverty.

Catalonia

The Spanish research was conducted in the regional government of Catalonia, the second most prosperous of 17 autonomous communities of Spain (according to most recent GDP data). Catalonia is a region with an industrial heritage, and more recently the main economic sectors are industry, tourism, and services. Unlike Windy Country, Catalonia is quite well connected, although some inland cities and towns have poor transportation links.

As Windy County, the regional Government of Catalonia do not have a regional or local authority department team or person responsible for the overall issue of EL, even though in recent years social integration technicians have been introduced in some schools for monitoring school absenteeism, since education is compulsory until the age of 16. Even though the Spanish and the regional Government of Catalonia, and also city councils, have made great efforts to confront EL, only 73.8% of the population aged 20 to 24 have secondary education (IDESCAT, February 2020).

The sample of Catalonia comprised 10 settings situated within six of the most socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods of the surrounding geographical area of Barcelona. All schools were public institutions considered to have high level of socio-economic deprivation according to the Catalan Department of Education: schools, which present a particularly disadvantaged social composition – with a high percentage of students of immigrant origin or with gypsy/Roma students and/or students from families with low socioeconomic status.

The young people interviewed had been identified within their settings as at-risk of disengaging with the school. They were aged between 12 and 18 years old and key young person groups affected by EL within the region included young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, immigrant students, Gypsy/Roma students, young people with disabilities, and students with behavioural difficulties and/or low academic levels.

Analysis

The data sets gathered in the English and Spanish contexts were analysed by each national team following the same strategy. First, interview and focus group recordings were professionally transcribed before being fed into a qualitative analysis software package (NVivo Pro 12 for the UK and MAXQDA for Spain). Two members of each national team analysed each transcript by using a coding framework based on the theoretical framework previously introduced in the paper. This was developed in the first phase of the study from a cross-national review of risk factors leading to EL. Data were analysed using a ‘code and retrieve’ approach to identify common phenomena, collect examples of these and identify themes and patterns within the data (Seidel and Kelle 1995). Themes were assigned to one of the five risk categories: personal, familial, social, institutional, and structural. This typology introduced a framework within which it was possible to identify putative generative mechanisms. Moreover, it enabled the identification of levels of interaction between these categories, macro, meso, micro, that may elicit causal mechanisms. The second phase looked across the total risk factors to search for generative mechanisms (Haig 1987) which linked, explained, and theorised the reported risks. One of the strengths of a Realist approach to policy analysis is that it enables us to understand multiple causal factors in the production of particular events or outcomes (Room 2013).

An overview of the datasets

Following Green (2003) we were mindful of the challenges when comparing analytic findings across national contexts. By way of an overview of key findings we present below two tables that highlight the ‘most significant’ issues raised across both Spain and England.

Significance was determined differently by both nations, according to the preference of the respective national teams. In Catalonia (Spain), it was determined by the number of times which a risk factor was raised in the interviews with stakeholders (see Table 2). The following table includes the most relevant risk factors that emerged from young people’s and adults’ responses, including the total themes that emerged within each risk category.

Table 2. Key factors by category and stakeholder, Catalonia (Spain)

Stake holders	Structural		Family		Institution		Personal		Social
Students		0		32		31		56		27
			- Low family support	10	- Teaching methods	12	- Lack of interest and motivation for the school	18	- Difficult relationships with teachers	25
			- Dysfunctional families	6	- Classroom environment	3	- Poor school performance	8	- Peers pressure	1
			- Low socio-economic level/ economic problems	5	- Institutional rigidity	3	- Low self-esteem or self-confidence	7	[General]	1
			[Others/less discussed]	11	[Others/less discussed]	13	[Others/less discussed]	23
Members of the school leadership team + Teachers/ trainers		47		89		44		113		18
	- Lack of training provision	12	- Low family support	24	- School transitions	15	- Cultural background	20	- Low peer group expectations	9
	- Lack of resources	12	- Low socio-economic level/ economic problems	21	- School environment	10	- Lack of interest and motivation for the school	15	- Peer pressure	7
	- High concentration of immigrant population	7	- Dysfunctional families	12	- Limited resources	9	- Special education needs/ low learning capabilities	12	- Difficult relationship with teachers	2
	[Others/less discussed]	16	- Parental values	12	[Others/less discussed]	10	- Poor school performance	9
			- Family culture	12			- Disruptive behaviour	9
			[Others/less discussed]	8			[Others/less discussed]	48
Overall		47		121		75		169		45

In Windy County significance was determined in two ways. Firstly, the prevalence with which risk factors were raised across the dataset (see Table 3). Secondly, at the conclusion of the interview/focus groups, participants were asked directly to identify which was the most important risk factor (see Table 4).

Table 3. Stated most important risk factor by category, Windy County (The UK)

Stake holders	Structural		Family		Institution		Personal		Social
Students		12		0		3		6		19
	- Exam pressure	12			[general]	3			- Bullying	12
									[general]	7
Members of the school leadership team + Teachers/ trainers		8		8		4		20		4
	- Education System	3	- Parenting difficulties	5	- Lack of alternative provision	1	- Mental health	5	- Bullying	1
	- Performative pressure	1	- Low income	1	- Institutional rigidity	1	- Low motivation	2	- Low peer expectations	1
	[general]	4	- Low family support	1	[general]	2	- Low aspirations	2	[general]	2
			[general]	1			- Communication difficulties.	1
							Low self esteem	1
							[general]	9
Overall		20		8		7		26		23

Table 4. The key factors discussed issues across the dataset, Windy County (The UK)

Risk factors (with issues breakdown)	Category
Educational Policy: (exam pressure and performance targets; raising compulsory ET to 18; performance pressure on teachers; change in the grading system, qualifications needed to facilitate employability, low government priority)	Structural
School Management of pupil behaviour: School environment that can’t accommodate EL behaviour, School exclusion, the impact of disruptive students	Institutional
Lack of Funding or Time: (School funding crisis; financial constraints on EL projects, How DfE use funds with schools, Lack of and cuts to youth services, services cut at 18 years old, Support services cut)	Structural
Personal experience of mental health issues: stress and anxiety for young people	Personal
Accessibility to education: Rurality and transport issues	Structural
Personal motivation, aspirations, expectations: unrealistic expectations; worry about the future	Personal
Requirement for post-16 maths and literacy	Structural
Transition from school to VET: (unclear VET pathways, Transition destination not sorted on leaving school, Flawed referral process, Options pathways for GCSEs)	Structural
Parental values: (low family aspirations, parental expectations for young people)	Family
Alternative provision in the region: Lack of continuity; limited availability; not affordable for schools; Not having a Pupil Referral Unit in the county,	Structural

The measures of significance used in both the Spanish and English contexts are not infallible and are provided to identify putative generative mechanisms. Given the disparity between indicators of significance between nations and the limitations of the measures themselves, we do not engage in a consideration of the relative importance of individual issues or categories in drawing out our comparisons between the two national contexts. The different measures of significance did not vitiate the comparative analysis given that different cultures and languages may point to similar phenomena and unearth the same generative mechanisms, but they may not hold the same significance in the two countries and may produce different effects (Ong 2006).

Results

Datasets on the risks to EL perceived by stakeholders in Catalonia (Spain) & Windy County (The UK)

The following two sections outline the key risk factors that emerged from our research in Spain (specifically, the regional government of Catalonia) and England (concretely, Windy County, in the South West). The data has been organised by country and according to the (previously outlined) five risk categories identified by Brown, Olmos, Costas Batlle and Gairin (2021, in this special issue): structural, institutional, social, family, and personal.

The five risk factors influencing Early Leaving in Catalonia, Spain

Structural risk factors

Structural factors (particularly those associated to the education system) were referred to mainly by school leadership teams and teachers. They linked them with different threats that affect young people and educational institutions. In teachers’ opinions, the structure of the Spanish Educational System is highly rigid and does not respond to the diversity and heterogeneity of students’ profiles. Teachers argued that there is a lack of real alternatives for young people who are at risk of EL or who are Early Leavers. For example, one teacher reported:

Being forced to remain in the formal/regulated system until the age of 16, puts the trajectories of many young people, who do not want to be there because they do not find meaning in what they are doing, at risk. (Teacher, Spain)

Furthermore, school leadership teams and teachers referred to the lack of support from the Catalan Educational Administration in reference to the excessive concentration of disadvantaged groups (immigrants, Gypsy/Roma students, students with learning or social difficulties, etc.) in some educational institutions. One member of the school leadership team expressed:

The educational system is generalist for everyone; it is equally [the same for everyone], and clearly, some neighbourhoods are not equal. […] [The Educational Administration] does not plan for educational centres and districts that need more resources. (School leader, Spain)

Finally, referring to VET, teachers believed that the places offered were insufficient, and that some of the training courses diverge either from the young people’s interests or market needs. One member of the school leadership team commented:

The lack of training opportunities after compulsory secondary education also means that there is a [high risk of] EL when young people end this stage, or reach the age of 16. The training offer is not always linked to what young people want or what the market needs. […] One of the main difficulties is the lack of a training offer link to young people’s interests. (School leader, Spain)

Finally, the mechanisms for tracking and identifying EL prematurely were considered insufficient, which adult stakeholders understood to hinder the possibility for developing preventive actions.

Institutional features of school risk factors

Young people referred to the teaching methods and school organisation when discussing the institutional features of schools, while teachers referred mainly to school transitions and school/classroom environment. Students said that the school day was too long that they had to learn a lot of content in a short period of time, workloads are very high, and that school lessons are monotonous: ‘We don’t like teaching strategies. Teaching methods are boring, and this is a cause that makes some of our classmates not want to go to school.’ (Student, Spain); ‘We always do the same thing: read and write. Sometimes we sleep’ (Gypsy/Roma Student, Spain).

Furthermore, the size of classes (more than 30 students on some occasions) adversely affected teachers’ capacity to assign personalised attention. This is why teachers considered that the methods promoted by the Catalan Education Administration were inappropriate for the class sizes and the students’ heterogeneity. It also prevented adequate personal, professional, and academic guidance. Subsequently, they considered that transitions between educational stages were not well managed. Teachers and educators asked for more personal resources, given that in recent years the number of students with learning and social difficulties had continued to increase, and that it was sometimes hard to manage some pupils’ behaviour. The effects were echoed by students who felt that negative behaviours influenced the rest of the class resulting in further distractions, poor behaviour, and punishments for everyone. Additionally, young people complained that behavioural sanctions were sometimes rigidly imposed.

Social relationships risk factors

Social relationship issues as risk factors were identified by both young people and educators. They referred to the complex and struggling relationships between young people and educational institutions, but especially between young people and teachers, and in highlighting the link with structural factors, these were exacerbated by the performative pressures of schooling. Some students claimed they did not feel listened to and supported by their teachers;

The teachers do not give us enough support. Teachers want you to do the work, and you to be a good student. If you are not a good student, they set you aside. So, to be separated, I prefer to be out of school and not go there. (Student, Spain)

For some students, poor relationships with teachers in school reinforced not feeling supported at home. In this sense, social risk factors were affected or amplified by familial and personal circumstances.

According to members of the leadership teams and the teaching staff, young Spaniards lack positive educational role models such as parents or friends. Most young people interviewed were either the first family member to access post-compulsory education, or were the only ones from their peer group. In this sense, contextual and peer pressure influenced young people’s decisions, as a member of the school leadership team observed:

The neighbourhood generates spaces where children are spending hours and hours drinking or smoking and it is not wrong in the eyes of the community. For example, our primary school students are up until early in the morning on the street. Independently of their age, they come to class feeling sleepy, and when we ask them, they answer that they went to sleep very late. (School leadership team, Spain)

Finally, technology overuse was seen to be another influential factor. Some young people spent a lot of time texting or gaming with their peers and considered themselves to be technology addicts because they ceased other daily issues, like homework or sleep.

Family circumstances risk factors

Family circumstances were seen to increase the risk of EL significantly. School leadership teams, teachers and students mainly referred to the lack of educational support, economic disadvantage, and low parental expectations for young people’s education.

Secondary students explained that their parents often did not help them with their academics because they lacked the time or knowledge. In the case of post-compulsory studies, young people felt families may not value studying or couldn’t/didn’t want to invest part of the family’s financial resources in their training. For that reason, teachers said some parents preferred their children to start working at the end of secondary education, or sooner if possible (as is the case with some immigrant groups as Gypsy/Roma students), which the students also sought: ‘What I want is to get to work as a shop assistant, a waitress, etc.; I want to work’ (Gypsy/Roma student, Spain). Furthermore, participants considered that it was very difficult to redirect educational pathways without family collaboration: ‘The lack of family support, lack of communication. If there is no home support to encourage finishing compulsory secondary education and graduating … it is very difficult to move on.’ (Student, Spain).

Related to the socioeconomic resources, living in an underprivileged context or depending on government subsidies increases the risk of EL in teachers’ opinions. Some students needed to support their families economically, or take care of siblings or family members, because families lacked the economic resources to pay for a caregiver.

Referring to the parental expectations for young people’s education, we identified different scenarios. On some occasions, parents had low expectations because they distrusted school, teachers, or authorities. Others wanted their children to obtain diplomas or certification because they, as parents, did not have the chance. The problem in the second case was that some parents did not let their children choose what to study; many students pursued a baccalaureate instead of a VET course because parents considered it to have more prestige than VET. In some cases, parents selected the VET course they wanted their children to pursue.

Finally, belonging to a complex family dynamic (for example, with parents in prison or conflicts of guardianship, such as experiencing family reunification processes, enduring separated parents) was seen to increase the risk of EL. Teachers echoed these points, suggesting that young people with complex family dynamics were likelier to suffer psychological, emotional, and social problems.

Personal challenges risk factors

Personal challenges were the group of risk factors most emphasised by young people and teachers. These aspects were predominantly associated with both a specific ‘youth profile’ (according to gender and migrant status) and academic performance, whilst also being influenced by familial and social circumstances.

Low levels of motivation and lack of interest for studies were perceived to be the most relevant risk factors, particularly when combined with unfavourable family contexts: ‘There is a general lack of motivation to go to school, often because the atmosphere they live at home does not accompany them to go to class’ (School leader, Spain).

The causes of demotivation differed between educational stages. In compulsory secondary education, young people pointed towards the monotony of classes and content repetition, which they felt contrasted with primary school education. For teachers, students’ demotivation was seen to be a consequence of low academic achievement and learning disabilities. Another factor concerned the impact of disruptive behaviour. When misconduct occurred, school exclusions were seen to lead some young people to leave education.

Regarding the baccalaureate, one source of demotivation was seen to be students lack of a robust educational foundation, or competency (e.g., study skills), to succeed, leading to frustration. Finally, in the case of VET, a lack of motivation often resulted from the programmes failing to meet young people’s expectations. Teachers pointed towards personal challenges stemming from young people’s low self-esteem, lack of faith in their future options, their negative academic self-perception, and the special educational needs that some of them presented. On many occasions, the low school performance of Spanish youth was associated with their linguistic and cultural background (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019). Young people who have participated in migratory processes in recent years sometimes are not fluent in Spanish – as is the case of the Moroccans, Pakistanis and Chinese – and this made it harder for them to understand teachers and lessons. Also, the personal challenges for Gypsy/Roma students are linked to the cultural tradition to marry a very young age, have to work to contribute financially to their family or have to take care of young siblings (Levison and Sparkes 2005).

Summary of the Spanish dataset

The different categories of risk factors are interconnected. On one hand, family and personal factors were predominantly cited by participants, particularly regarding their interplay with institutional risks (institutional risks can be buffered by low family and personal risk factors). On the other hand, social relationship risk factors were considered supplementary in that they could reinforce personal challenges. Structural factors were only cited by members of the school leadership teams and teachers/trainers to refer mainly to the lack of training provision, the lack of resources and the high concentration of immigrant or Gypsy/Roma student population. Most of the structural risk factors represented framework conditions that are imposed by the Catalan and Spanish Educational Administrations that educators could not directly address.

The five risk factors influencing Early Leaving in Windy County, England

Structural risk factors

Half of the most prevalent risk factors came under the category of structural factors of which issues concerning the educational system were the most prominent, in particular, the performative pressures on young people – and to a lesser degree – on teachers. Of the 20 participants who stated structural factors as the most significant category 12 young people identified ‘exam pressure’, despite the majority being at a mid-point in their studies. Other issues included the ‘unclear pathways’ and ‘flawed referral processes’ underpinning transitions from school onto Vocational Education and Training (VET) and their disconnection from national examination options at 16 (GCSEs). Education Policy was the most discussed risk factor across the entire dataset and key issues included; statutory performance targets and changes in examination gradings, the requirement for post 16 maths/English, as a barrier for those pursuing vocational/training pathways; the raising of age of participation in education/training to 18 and the associated increased requirement for qualifications to gain employment. As with Spain, the absence of available mechanisms to identify those at risk of EL was critiqued, as well as the ineffectiveness or disjointed nature of mechanisms to track EL, which could not accommodate many students, including following relocation and those home-schooled, or had dropped out of the system. Adults lamented the non-requirement for schools to report post 16 leavers who dropped out after transferring to VET, or post 18 leavers (in the absence of an Education Health and Care Plan). Finally, a lack of funding and resources emerged as a critical issue in terms of; schools’ provision, the time limited nature of project interventions, cuts to youth services, support services – especially those that end at 18 – with the consequence that for many young people from low-income backgrounds, their basic needs were not being met. More specific economic challenges for the region included; the rural geography and limited transportation links and absence of a university. Furthermore, unlike most counties in England, Windy county did not have a pupil referral unit (a school for children with severe behavioural difficulties) and therefore schools’ retained accountability for students presenting the most severe behavioural issues and had to pay for alternative educational arrangements, which were limited in availability and very expensive. This prevented mainstream schools from permanently excluding young people meaning, ‘it’s in our interests to keep hold of these students as long as we can, because either way we are responsible for them.’ (Pastoral leader of an academy school). Accordingly, educators perceived that poorly behaved students could not be incentivised by exclusion to moderate their behaviour; ‘because it’s not a true threat’ (senior leader, academy school).

Institutional features of school and work risk factors

Organisational policies were the most significant issue raised by stakeholders in the risk category of ‘institutional features of school/work’, in particular the school management of student behaviour’, which was the second single most discussed issue raised across the dataset. As a consequence of limited alternative provision, at-risk learners continued to access schooling where it was not appropriate, and in-school behavioural policies were stringent, emphasising an individual and atomised learning environment. Young people complained that behavioural sanctions were imposed without consultation, they were confusing and with low thresholds;

Half the behaviours I think are like ridiculous, like … you get like a [low level sanction] for standing up … .sexual harassment is a [temporary exclusion level sanction], but swearing at a teacher is a [permanent exclusion level sanction] … Literally, it is just the teachers that did it, we didn’t get a say in what we think (Ellie, Academy school)

As a result students’ were frequently removed from the classroom to learn in an ‘isolation’ setting so as not to distract other learners, or even in inappropriate learning spaces; ‘they kept me in a corridor for 7 months and I did not do any work … I just did colouring in and stuff’ (Juliette, 14, SEND school, Windy County). The school environment was seen to be inappropriate for those at risk of EL. Many young people identified the size of the learning cohort (30 students in mainstream schools) as being overwhelming and in lacking personalised support. They described classrooms as too hot/cold and with uncomfortable seating. These aspects contributed to stakeholders’ perception of the ‘institutional rigidity’ of schooling, in which the norms and culture of schooling were not seen to be inclusive to the needs of all learners. One of the key institutional differences between mainstream and specialist schooling reported by young people in Windy County was the small class sizes of 5–8 young people where, ‘you get more attention from the teacher [compared with] … in mainstream you’ve got may be 30 seconds of their time’ (Bruno, 16, SEND school). Correspondingly, young people did not feel that they had enough respite time due to performative demands and many did not enjoy lessons. These aspects also connected to stakeholders’ sense that there was insufficient support available due to; teachers limited time and resources; a lack of personal, professional or academic guidance; insufficient measures to identify need and target support; and the consequential risky transitions from school onto training, or further education;

You are stuck between a rock and a hard place. So, do the 29 kids matter, or does the one child matter? You know that the one child is struggling everywhere, but there isn’t a safety net there to catch this child. What do you do for this child? (Teacher Academy School Windy County).

Social relationship risk factors

Social relationships emerged as the most significant risk category stated by young people, with difficult relationships in school disproportionally discussed over those at work. Key issues problematising relationships with teachers included being shouted at and not listened to, leading young people to feel not cared about by their teachers and disliking them. To a lesser degree, stakeholders pointed to poor relationships with other adults in school, particularly the headteacher who represented a key figure in generating a positive or negative sense of feeling valued in school. More significant for young people were their relationships with peers in school. A key issue raised was that of bullying identified as the most significant risk factor by young people. Adults believed that bullying was a strategy to achieve a sense of control and power in school (in circumstances where young people felt they had little). It was seen to be a particular risk for young people from low-income backgrounds for their lack of material resources such as having the ‘right’ clothes or shoes. Compounding the impact of bullying was that young people perceived it to assume a low priority for teachers. Other peer related issues included; low peer group expectations for the future, social anxiety, and feeling judged by peers, as well as peer pressure to drink, smoke or take drugs. Difficulty in navigating friendships was also raised as a key issue due to the impacts of poor friendship management skills, low friendship expectations, particularly where the friendship culture was anti-educational, conflict and friendship breakdown or in difficulty maintaining them. These issues were seen to be particularly pronounced in girls’ friendships. On the other end of the spectrum young people voiced a sense of isolation or feeling different/singled out; ‘If you don’t have a really good friend in a school or you don’t have many friends, there’s no reason to go back to school’ (Clive, SEND school). Lastly, internet risks were seen to play a key role in impacting in-school relationships, including through the issues of; social media pressure, online gaming, susceptibility to grooming and cyber-bullying.

Family circumstances

This risk factor was underpinned by three intertwined aspects: the impact of socio-economic deprivation, complex family relationships, and parental values and attitudes towards education. Many families struggled with employment (either by having to live on benefits, experience stretches of unemployment, or having to work long hours in multiple jobs) and were limited by the rural geography of the county and poor public transport networks. In turn, the impact of a lower socio-economic level became noticeable by being forced to live in smaller, overcrowded accommodation, and also living in neighbourhoods which could be unsafe. This living situation exacerbated the complicated family relationships young people experienced, such as having care duties for family members or those experiencing alcohol or substance abuse. Parents working long hours were also cited as an issue, whereby young people would be unsupervised for many hours. The combination of these factors was seen to lead to or compound mental health challenges. Lastly, the data suggested many parental values and attitudes towards education could be summarised as ‘low aspiration’ – many families had enjoyed limited, if any, success with education, and therefore did not trust the system. Educators reported that these attitudes were reflected in some children’s value of education.

Personal challenges

Young people faced a broad range of personal challenges, which put them at risk of EL. Disengagement from education was typically perceived by adults to stem from; low academic achievement through their ‘academic journeys’, lack of trust in adults in education settings, and a negative self-perception as a learner; ‘I think it’s often an issue of trust, they don’t really trust the schools, they think they know what the schools think about them … that they’re worthless’ (LA service leader). These aspects were seen to lead to negative experiences of formal education, which were seen to be further exacerbated if young people had Special Education Needs or required additional education support, like an Education and Healthcare Plan. Given the above, students who faced exclusions were reported by young people to have increasingly lost faith in the education system, and had to experience multiple educational transitions, which impacted their developing deep roots anywhere. Underlying these issues was a perceived lack of resilience, self-esteem and self-confidence. Consequentially, young people struggled with tasks that required them to take risks or, at times, work hard (which involves failing at a task to learn it). Given their low aspirations and faith in education (as a result of the issues outlined above), they would become further disengaged from education. Lastly, another key aspect of the personal challenges young people faced were a myriad of mental health issues. Many of them experienced bullying, stress, anxiety, depression, or the difficulties of coming through the care system. Having also experienced trauma and substance abuse (in part, through complex family relationships), young people struggled to manage their emotions or self-advocate.

Summary of the Windy County dataset

Participants’ discussion of the key risk factors to EL in Windy County indicated a high level of interaction and interconnection between the risk categories. In scaffolding many of the issues that followed, structural factors accounted for six of the most prevalent issues, particularly those concerning educational policy and the education system and the barriers caused by socio-economic disadvantage in a rural region. These issues created the parameters through which young people and their families experienced schools as institutions and the social relationships they formed with adults and peers within them. The impact of such barriers were illustrated most keenly in young peoples’ personal challenges such as low motivations, aspirations and sense of value. In particular, the issue of mental health challenges was seen to be the most significant cause and consequence of young peoples’ experience of the external barriers they faced.

Discussion

In this discussion, we offer a comparative analysis of the risks to EL across two regions in England (Windy County) and Spain (Catalonia). We identified three issues that underpin the interrelation between risk categories, and help to explain both the cumulative and exponential development of risk to EL, as well as young people’s progress through the educational system. The first is the extent to which a neoliberal approach to policymaking such as performative pressures to meet benchmark standards, the reduction in of powers to municipal authorities, and the influence of parental choice creating a competition for resources and ghettoised ‘sink’ schools (Smith 2012) exacerbates the risks in educational institutions. Secondly, we argue socio-economic disadvantage compounds each of the five risk categories (structural, institutional, social, familial, and personal). Lastly, we discuss how the strength and quality of young people’s relationships can serve as either a barrier or protective factor to EL.

The first issue that emerges from the comparative analysis of both national contexts was the neoliberal approach to educational policymaking and the extent to which it exacerbated, or conditioned, institutional (school-related) risks. The top-down influence of neoliberal structural risk factors produced school-related institutional risk factors common to Catalonia and Windy County in various ways. Municipal and Local Authorities saw their power weakened in relation to the mechanisms associated with identifying and tracking EL, as well as a reduced ability to buffer the impact of educational disadvantage and distribute resources fairly across educational institutions.

The impotence of mainstream schools to meet young peoples’ needs was lamented by educators across both nations. Competition for resources between schools was evident whereby teachers and young people in both nations acknowledged that the class sizes of 30+ students is a key barrier to addressing individual challenges. Educators in the Catalan context understood resourcing issues to curtail their capacities to develop prevention, intervention and compensation strategies, where institutional rigidity was seen to be a key barrier.

Following a neoliberal model, the state intervention in schooling is minimised, thereby creating a marketised approach by which schools are funded and made accountable for students through the number of students enrolled and their educational achievements. Academy schools (comprising all the mainstream schools in the sample in England) for example, are accountable directly to central government, which can be seen to be a major obstacle in dislocating schools from the buffering impact of reciprocal relations with support agencies and the community. In the words of one local authority official ‘schools potentially need to be less of an island’.

In many ways, these policy factors had an influence upon the school learning environment, which in both national contexts was characterised by one of large class sizes, and a lack of resources or alternative education, highlighting the difficulty for schools to support learners with additional or specialist needs (SEND). In England, austerity policymaking has made it harder to meet and evidence thresholds to access statutory support for SEND. It was unsurprising therefore that mainstream schools showed evidence of educational triage (Gilborn and Youdell 2000) where resources were focused upon those students most likely to meet targets, while those most needing support were left to flounder, through various forms of in-school exclusion such as isolation rooms or inappropriate learning spaces such as corridors. In the Spanish case, the high number of students per class increased the difficulty to promote diversity and respect student heterogeneity. Schools reacted by implementing organisational measures (Pascual, García, and Vázquez-Cano 2019) like flexible groupings (where students are temporarily grouped together in order to develop an identified skill) or cooperative education (combining classroom education with practical work experience); supporting young people who have recently migrated, and who do not speak Spanish or Catalan, by having ‘reception halls’ (‘Aula d’acollida’); and lastly, some schools had shared schooling units (‘Unidades de escolarización compartida’) or special education support units (‘Unitats de suport a l’educació especial’) for students with disabilities and special education needs. In all the cases, students split their time between the ‘regular’ and ‘support’ classes to maintain social relationships with peers.

The constraints imposed on schools by a neoliberal approach to policymaking can be seen to result in a rigid, competitive and performative education model that children resisted (Brown, Lauder, and Cheung 2020). This manifested in the identified ineffectiveness of schools in managing behavioural issues, a key factor raised in both national contexts, where young people complained of the rigidity of a top-down school behavioural policy that avoided consultation with students. In Windy County young people responded to such rigidity with frustration, where in the Catalan context was seen to disconnect with learning in presenting an apathetic learner orientation. Some teachers and school movements who defend public education (unions, and education federations, among others) were disappointed with the neoliberal policies implemented in the last years (Saura, Muñoz, Luengo and Martos 2017; Torres 2001). These groups considered that the school system is incapable of responding to students’ needs because austerity policies have decreased funding for public education.

The consequence of neoliberal imperatives across both national contexts can therefore be seen to translate into personal challenges through the construction of a narrow and prescriptive model of education that was perceived by stakeholders to exert pressure on young people to fit a ‘mould’ of an atomised and compliant learner (Giroux 1999). Students in both nations complained of long school days, too much homework and ‘boring’ lessons that focused on individual siloed learning methods. An acknowledged consequence of meeting prescriptive curriculum targets (where in England, pay is linked to results in academy schools), is that teachers are encouraged to teach-to-the-test (Johnston and McClune 2000) and comply with the regulations (curriculum, evaluation and internal school rules) (González-Rodríguez, Vieira, and Vidal 2019), which has been linked to a demonstrable negative impact on the motivation and self-esteem of lower-achievers in school (Harlen and Deaken-Crick 2002). This highlights the ways in which institutional factors translate into personal challenges for young people and may explain why low motivation to learn, and a dislike of lessons, were among the key risk factors to leaving cited by students in both countries.

Notwithstanding the similarities in the ways in which neoliberal policymaking could be seen to underpin the risks to EL threaded across the different categories of risk, as Ong (2006) has argued, there were notable differences in the mechanisms by which they worked in the different contexts, and the effects they produced. Mental health difficulties emerged as the most significant risk factor within the personal challenges’ category in Windy County, where it did not feature in the Spanish data. Recent policy measures have tasked schools in England with new responsibilities in promoting children’s mental health (DfE/PHE 2017) which risked framing mental health as an educational problem to be addressed through building children’s individual resilience (Brown and Carr 2019). Early evidence suggests that children perceive schools to translate the narrative that their mental health is subject to individual strength to cope with educational related failure and maintain a positive learning orientation (Brown and Dixon 2020). This points to the importance of empirical research needed to explore to what extent mental health difficulties are the cause or consequence of neoliberal education policymaking and to what extent this may lead to school drop-out.

A key difference in which the neoliberal model operated in Spain/Catalonia was such that aspirant parents in the high immigration communities were able to opt for the semi-private schools or move to another school, therefore avoiding the multiple challenges faced by public schools serving these communities. This presented a unique alternative ‘circuit of schooling’ (Ball, Bowe, and Gewirtz 1995) not possible for families in the Windy County, for whom private education was unaffordable. These findings reinforce those of Bernal and Vera (2019) where school choice systems have created a form of segregation and inequality in specific contexts: public schools had to compete for students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, leaving other schools in the sample to inevitably welcome bigger concentrations of young people from lower socioeconomic demographics, minorities, and migrants.

The second underpinning generative theme we identified is that of socio-economic disadvantage, which could be seen to compound each of the risk categories. Here there were parallels between the two national contexts, with respect to the impact of living in a low income and the associated pressures on young people to seek employment in order to contribute to the family income, as well contribute to caring or domestic responsibilities (Ridge 2000). However, there were some key differences. In Windy County, the key intersecting issue was that of the rural geography of the region, with its demonstrable impact on social exclusion in effecting educational outcomes (Howley, Howley, and Johnson 2014). For young people in this region, the barriers caused by the interaction between poverty and rurality were poor transportation links and expensive public transport, thus limiting students’ available education and training options and causing long and tiring commutes. Educators also observed that the lack of a university and limited economic opportunities and established low skill labour-market jobs of parents, limited young peoples’ aspirations’ regarding their education and training trajectories. This finding may also reflect the unconscious bias that teachers have been found to label low-income families in rural settings (Panos and Seelig’s 2019).

Socio-spatial issues could also be seen to interact with socio-economic disadvantage in causing discrete barriers in the Catalan context. In this case, through being part of ghettoised and stigmatised communities and the associated factors of social exclusion and linguistic competence increased the difficulties to obtain a secondary school certificate and enrol in post-compulsory studies. In Spain/Catalonia, EL predominantly impacted the immigrant population from low-economic backgrounds, where families’ lack of linguistic competence in Spanish/Catalan, further increased the difficulties for social and educational inclusion. Linguistic competency also interfered with students’ academic performance, especially in core subjects (Álvarez-Sotomayor and Martínez-Cousinou 2020). Notwithstanding these challenges, it was also notable that participants viewed the Catalan Immersion Model (where Catalan is the working language in all non-university education) to be a successful model, in promoting social inclusion and social participation.

The third and final aspect underpinning the risks to EL concerned the strength and quality of young peoples’ relationships as reflecting either a barrier or protective factor. In the sociological literature, the value that relationships have on educational achievement is well documented and has been explained through the concept of social capital (Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988) as a key explanatory factor explaining school dropout (Hagan MacMillan, and Wheaton 1996; Pribesh and Downey 1999). This is because relationships with peers, family and teachers can play a key role in countering children’s sense of isolation and exclusion and can lead to the formation of pro or anti-schooling values (Brown 2012; Coleman 1990). For the young people in both national contexts, social relationships emerged as the most significant risk factor. In the English data young peoples’ focus was upon their peers, in terms of a lack of friends or bullying. In the Catalan context, young people more often cited relationships with their teachers as the cause of low motivation and disengagement. The consequence of low social capital in the form of problematic relationships with peers and teachers is that they emphasised young people’s sense of isolation within school. This may explain why the influence of family and in the Catalan case – community values – were perceived to be so pernicious in reinforcing young peoples’ view that education and training was not for them (Díaz-Vicario, Armengol and Castro 2019; Tarabini 2015). Coming from a minority background, or being a first-generation migrant, increases the effects of these sub-factors.

It may also explain the common finding across nations that at-risk young people made frequent use of online gaming, and social media engagement, perhaps in response to and in an attempt to counter a sense of isolation and as a proxy for building a sense of community in the real world.

Conclusion: implications for policy and practice

This paper has undertaken a comparative analysis of the risks to EL by examining empirical data from educators and young people in two regions within England and Spain. In endorsing the value of a holistic framework to conceptualise the risks to EL (see Brown, Olmos, Costas Batlle and Gairin 2021, in this special issue), our findings highlight that there is no single factor or category of risk that in isolation can explain EL. Indeed, in running counter to the neo-liberal emphasis on the individual student, our argument has underscored the need to consider EL as a multifaceted and highly contextual phenomenon, where multiple factors can be seen to coalesce in mediating, amplifying or reinforcing challenges that young people face across the key arenas in their lives. In contrast to the nested Russian dolls allegory of comparative research (e.g. Chong and Graham 2013) where each contextual sphere of society (e.g. macro, exo, meso) provides for and limits the possibilities of contextual influence for the sphere directly below it, we found the influence of risks produced as both affected by as well as impacting on issues raised within all other categories.

It is notable that structural factors could be seen to exert a downward pressure upon institutional, social relationship, familial and personal factors through scaffolding the parameters within which schools operated and at-risk children could be identified, as well as the provision they had available. Despite the different mechanisms and effects by which they operated in each context (Ong 2006) we have argued that the neoliberal approach to policymaking taken in both nations could be seen to play a key catalyst in exacerbating the systemic risks that young people faced. This was evident both in the overall lack of resources schools had at their disposal, as well as the inequitable allocation of resources between public schools. This calls for a policy re-structuring that allows for a flexible institutional structure and learning environment that can accommodate for a diverse range of learners. It calls into question the appropriateness of a central governance model where national governments are removed from the local/regional and contextual nature of young peoples’ lives. Stakeholders in both nations called for a strengthening of the powers of municipal authorities in tracking and targeting EL interventions. In Windy County, this would be a return to a previous model where local authorities had the funds and responsibility to fund personal NEET advisors and a local employment support teams, while in Catalonia educators were unanimous in their view that municipalities are closer to the population and better aware of how best to design preventive measures. In Catalonia, the educational policies of recent years have acknowledged the need for a more flexible education system, the expansion of second-chance measures and the implementation of strategies as now on the political agenda, while in England, the recent focus on strengthening VET routes demonstrates that the UK is hedging their bets on prevention while ignoring the dual prong focus Spain has promised to concurrently tackle re-engagement.

It is at the institutional level that the interactions between the different risk categories could be seen to operate. Performative pressures on teachers inevitably led to the social and educational exclusion at a number of levels, both in the organisation of students’ learning environments as well as in curtailing young people’s sense of being valued learners. This was compounded by familial circumstances whereby intergenerational school failure led to a familial narrative that schooling did not meet on its promises and expectations that young peoples’ energies were better focused on supporting the family in other ways.

In concluding our analysis, it is perhaps apposite to reflect upon the slither of hope that emerges from our findings. It is the final interlinking issue in our analysis that we believe offers the greatest potential for practitioners to respond; in strengthening young peoples’ relationships in school and the community as a key avenue by which schools and educators can seek to ameliorate challenges raised within the three micro spheres of the school, home and community. This is because the most significant personal challenges; low self-esteem, motivations, aspiration and a negative learner identity are all tackled primarily through young peoples’ relationships with peers, teachers, family and members of the community (see Olmos and Gairín 2021, in this special issue). Such a focus fits with a policy shift requirement that moves away from an atomised and individualistic focus and towards an emphasis on schools’ role in building children’s social connection to the community and participation in society (see Brown and Shay 2021). Such a sea change would place at centre stage the recognition that young people’s educational trajectories require the concerted efforts of educationalists and policymakers in going beyond the instrumental dimension of learning, to address the elements that support young people’s engagement with education; young people’s sense of belonging, confidence as learners; and aspirations where investments in education and achievement lead to success in the labour market and social inclusion.

Combating EL is an educational priority, and one that requires consensus between the political, educational and social actors involved, to implement actions that promote the educational success of all young people. Therefore, rather than partial solutions, integrated policies that respond to the different risk factors of EL (personal, family, social, institutional, and structural) are required.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the European Commission (Erasmus+ Programme) [604501-EPP-1-2018-1-ES-EPPKA3-IPI-SOC-IN].

Notes on contributors

Ceri Brown

Ceri Brown is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education at the University of Bath, UK. She is interested in the impacts of education policy on children’s schooling experiences particularly for those who experience educational binds such as living on a low income, irregular school transitions, mental health challenges, and those at risk of early school leaving.

Social media handles: @CeriBee; linkedin.com/in/ceri-brown-13528112b

Anna Díaz-Vicario

Anna Díaz-Vicario Degree in Pedagogy, Master's Degree in Research in Education and PhD in Education by the Autonomous University of Barcelona. She is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Applied Pedagogy of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), where she teaches about organisation and management of socio-educational institutions. She is a researcher of the Centre de Recerca i Estudis pel Desenvolupament Organitzatiu (CRiEDO) of the UAB.

Social media handles: @Annadiazvi85; www.linkedin.com/in/anna-diaz-vicario

Ioannis Costas Batlle

Ioannis Costas Batlle is a Lecturer in the Department of Education at the University of Bath. He is interested in the role of non-formal and informal education in young people’s lives, primarily focusing on charities, youth groups, youth sport, and young people not in education, employment or training. As a qualitative researcher who comes from an interdisciplinary background, Ioannis’s research draws on critical pedagogy, sociology and psychology.

José Luís Muñoz Moreno

José Luís Muñoz Moreno Bachelor of Pedagogy and Doctor of Quality and Processes of Educational Innovation (Extraordinary Award) from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). He is a tenured lecturer at the Department of Applied Pedagogy of the UAB, where he teaches about the organisation and management of socio-educational institutions. He is a researcher of the Centre de Recerca i Estudis pel Desenvolupament Organitzatiu (CRiEDO) of the UAB and a member of the work team of the research group CRIE (Curriculum, Resources and Educational Institutions) of the University of València.

Social media handles: @DesDeRipo

Notes

1. We use the terms ‘NEET’ and ‘Early Leaver’ (EL) interchangeably.

2. Acronym in Spanish: Ley Orgánica de Educación.

3. Acronym in Spanish: Ley Orgánica para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa.

4. Acronym in Spanish: Plan para la Reducción del Abandono Escolar.

5. Acronym in Spanish: Programas de Cualificación Profesional Inicial.

6. Acronym in Spanish: Formación Profesional Básica.

7. A pseudonym.