Dropping out of further education: complex causes and simplistic policy assumptions

This paper draws on a longitudinal study of young people studying in further education in England to explore contradictions between the complex reasons why a small number of the sample dropped out without completing their courses and qualifications, and the simplistic funding and policy assumptions about such ‘failures’. Current English policy assumes that retention and qualification achievement rates are appropriate measures of learning and of educational provision. Yet the stories presented here demonstrate that many of the factors influencing non-completion lie beyond the control of both the educational providers and the learners. Furthermore, from the perspective of the learner, there is little difference between changing educational or career intentions during or at the end of a course. Yet policy assumes that the former is dysfunctional and the latter unproblematic. Based upon our data, we argue that the causes of dropping out can best be explained in the context of an individual's learning career, which involves a complex combination of social and economic factors, individual preferences and beliefs, and contingency. Not only do current English policy approaches ignore this complexity; they also risk making things worse for a significant minority of students. The failure to acknowledge that dropping out is normal and appropriate for some, means that those who do drop out receive no help or support, except to stay on. Furthermore, there is a risk that educational providers will refuse to recruit students in ‘at risk’ categories, for fear that they will be judged adversely, should some of them eventually fail to complete. Finally, the audit obsession with retention and achievement rates blames either the individual student or the education and guidance providers for failure, thus rendering deeper inequalities, based on class, gender and ethnicity, invisible and harder to address.