Search

Periods of being NEET (not in education, employment or training) can have long-term consequences for individuals' future job opportunities, earnings, psycho-social well-being and health, all with high societal costs. Therefore, policy-makers across Europe seek interventions that successfully reduce NEET numbers. Drawing on a longitudinal qualitative study in London, this paper explores the processes and mechanisms that contribute to young people becoming NEET after leaving education. Through analysis of 53 young NEETs' accounts of their school and transition experiences, we draw upon Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory to explore the multitude of factors and structures of disadvantage that might have contributed to these young people's marginalisation in education and employment. We discuss how unfulfilled support needs, a lack of career advice and socio-economic disadvantage can lead to educational disengagement, dropping out and, ultimately, becoming NEET. While many of these issues were presented as personal difficulties, in this article we reject the individualisation of the 'NEET problem'. Instead, we argue that negative school experiences need to be understood in the context of structural conditions, including funding cuts in education and support services, transformations in the labour market and socio-economic deprivation.

Based on two case studies of Third Sector Organizations (TSOs) working with schools and parents in Catalonia and London, this paper aims to discuss some of the implications of "participative" programmes aimed at involving those migrant families seen by schools as "hard to reach". First, we describe how an ambiguous notion of participation can shift responsibilities to families and leave internal school practices free from critical gaze. Second, we focus on the complexities and tensions involved in the process of partnering TSOs with schools because of the bureaucratic nature of educational institutions and unresolved conflicts of interests and responsibilities. Finally, we argue that the potential of these initiatives were limited and diluted by being stand-alone and time-limited. Our analysis suggests that, in spite of their apparent success, they ended up being part of powerful authorising narratives that justify the outsourcing of public services and the abdication of the State's responsibilities.