“A melting pot”: challenging student behaviour in the United Kingdom’s further education sector

Introduction

Schools and colleges expect appropriate conduct from students; however, this can often test students’ boundaries (Hayden, 2011), sometimes resulting in reactions varying from disagreements to drug-related violence and sexual assault (Porteous, 1998, 2014; Hayden, 2011). The nature of student behaviour in such cases and how best to deal with it are subjects that have long interested researchers, policymakers and practitioners. In the context of this study, “challenging behaviour” can vary from disagreements to physical violence, illicit drug use and related activities and sexual harassment and assault (Squires and Stephen, 2005; Millie, 2009; Hayden, 2010; Millie and Moore, 2011; Martin et al., 2011a).

In England, schools must have a behaviour policy that sets out students’ behaviour expectations and the sanctions imposed for misbehaviour [Department for Education (DfE), 2016]. Schools may only impose reasonable sanctions or penalties and are free to develop policies and strategies for managing behaviour to meet their respective circumstances and needs, which can vary across schools. Notably, schools possess this power because the government believes that they are best placed to recognise their students’ needs. In 2010, the White Paper titled The Importance of Teaching, released by the DfE, expanded teachers’ powers to deal with violence; these powers, to some extent, resemble those that police forces and other security agencies are vested with Cremin and Bevington (2017). Some powers stipulated in the White Paper (2010) allow the following: more authority to discipline students, expanded search powers, power to maintain discipline beyond the school gates and removing the requirement of a 24-h notice for detentions. Teachers can discipline students for misbehaving outside the school premises (DfE, 2016). The government produced a document advising schools on the aspects that should be included in the behaviour policy and ways to develop effective strategies to manage student behaviour (DfE, 2016). This document covers topics such as designing the behaviour policy, school discipline, punishing poor behaviour, behaviour and sanctions and pupils’ conduct outside school gates. It should be noted that such advice and support are lacking in the further education (FE) sector, which relies on resources available in other sectors, such as secondary schools.

In this study, I first review the literature on challenging behaviour in schools and underscore how research on challenging behaviour in the FE sector has been limited. Next, I consider my PhD study that explored restorative justice (RJ) and its practices in the FE sector, and particularly examine the findings on the behavioural challenges and experiences shared by participants. In this paper, I present the key findings from the data, including how the FE sector’s “diverse community” impacts challenging behaviour, how institutions deal with “violence” and “gangs”, and how some conflicts are exacerbated by “social media”. Finally, I call for further in-depth empirical research to better understand such challenges faced by FE institutions, staff and students, and emphasise the need to aid and develop policies specific to the FE sector.

Contextualising and defining challenging behaviour in education

Schools play a primary and valuable socialising role and are at the forefront of didactic responses to social ills, thus aspiring to improve society (Hendrick, 2006; Martin et al., 2011a). Based on these ideals, from 1997 to 2010, Tony Blair and the New Labour Administration focused on and invested in education and tackling crime (Martin et al., 2011a). Tony Blair’s speech during the Labour Party Conference in 1996, where he assures to prioritise “Education, education, education…” (Martin et al., 2011a, p. 3), became the zeitgeist, cementing his victory to govern the country (Deakin and Kupchik, 2016).

During the 1990s, research into challenging behaviour in education was undertaken primarily to draw attention to the high levels of victimisation (Aye Maung, 1995; Porteous, 1998, 2014) among children and young people; however, this research took on a new meaning under the New Labour Administration, which viewed schools as spaces wherein youth crime could be addressed. This agenda was encapsulated in The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) and the “Respect” agenda (Martin et al., 2011a); thus, the state sees schools as having a crime prevention role (Hayden, 2005). Consequently, the management of crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) has begun to play a pivotal role in the education system (Martin et al., 2011a). In this context, Millie and Moore (2011) argue that schools’ aims and objectives have shifted from teaching, learning, discipline and truancy control to crime control; Millie and Moore (2011) define crime control following Hirschfield (2008):

[…] the shift toward a crime control paradigm in the definition and management of the problem of student deviance. Criminalisation encompasses the manner in which policy makers and school actors think and communicate about the problem of student rule violation as well as myriad dimensions of school praxis including architecture, penal procedure, and security technologies and tactics. (Hirschfield, 2008, p. 80; cited by Millie and Moore, 2011, pp. 18-19)

Previously, schools used to manage behaviour using tools and available measures, such as suspensions and exclusions; however, at present, institutions are seeking police intervention (Millie and Moore, 2011). Connelly et al.’s (2020) project on police officers in schools in Greater Manchester and Joseph-Salisbury’s (2021) analysis of teachers’ perspectives regarding police officers in English schools offer invaluable insights, reporting that participants demonstrated negative feelings pertaining to police presence in schools. Parents and guardians were concerned about sending their children to a school with police presence. Furthermore, police officers’ presence was noted to be predominately in schools based in working-class areas, thus inflaming the discourse and feelings of inequality and stigmatisation. This phenomenon is further exacerbated by the fact that the “knife crime” label, when used by the media, politicians and others, refers to a:

[P]articular context and demographic that has now become common knowledge in public discourse. As such, when 'knife crime' is mentioned in Britain, it will likely be assumed that we are talking about a type of crime that is distinctly youthful, that this is a problem located in the inner-city (particularly London), and that this crime type is characterised by youth culture disproportionately represented by Black or Asian young people. (Williams, 2023, p. 2)

Participants from Connelly et al.’s (2020) and Joseph-Salisbury’s (2021) studies also argued that police officers discriminate against people of colour and minorities; their presence negatively affects schools and creates a climate of fear, anxiety and hostility. Concerns have also been expressed regarding criminalising minor behaviours, thus leading to a school-to-prison pathway. Participants reported observing or experiencing inappropriate behaviours from police officers, such as offensive language, sexism, sexualisation of young people, police violence and harassment. A minority of participants argued that police officers in schools would ensure safety, deter violence and improve police relations with the local community. Connelly et al. (2020) and Joseph-Salisbury (2021) argue that investing in more staff trained within the education sector, rather than police officers, to supervise students’ behavioural challenges and other difficulties would benefit the institutions. More recently, police presence in schools triggered public outrage when a 15-year-old female black student, Child Q, was strip-searched (Quinn, 2022); an investigation concluded that racism was likely to have been an influencing factor (Quinn, 2022).

The use of language in education is crucial (Hayden, 2010). The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) defines ASB as an act “[…] that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons, not of the same household as the perpetrator” (S.1 [1a] Crime and Disorder Act [1998]). S.1 (1a) has been considered problematic (Martin et al., 2011a), “because it includes behaviour “perceived” to be a threat rather than actual threatening behaviour” (Martin et al., 2011a, p. 6). This loose definition of ASB suggests that it can lead to acts not previously considered ASB to fall under its umbrella (Squires and Stephen, 2005; Millie, 2009; Millie and Moore, 2011). The term “violence” also causes issues, as its definition differs across countries and disciplines; furthermore, an issue relates to whether psychological harm must be included, alongside physical harm, when defining the term (Osler and Starkey, 2005; Waddington et al., 2006; Martin et al., 2011a). Finally, some “challenging behaviour” could be influenced by other factors such as “disaffection, special educational needs and testing the boundaries” (Martin et al., 2011a, p. 5). Nonetheless, the education sector in the UK has adopted a quasi-judicial approach to managing student behaviour and the language from the criminal justice system (McCluskey et al., 2008), reflecting the western criminal justice system (Thorsborne and Vinegrad, 2003).

Challenging behaviour in education

Aye Maung (1995) conducted one of the earliest studies on crime in schools using the British Crime Survey, which included a subsample of students from 11 to 15 years old. It should be noted that victimisation surveys with young people began in the 1990s (Porteous, 2014). Undoubtedly, studies on crime and challenging school behaviours were conducted before 1995 (Willis, 1977; Corrigan, 1979); however, literature review commenced with Aye Maung’s (1995) study and research conducted thereafter. I regarded this as an ideal starting point for the literature review because of the use of British Crime Survey. Furthermore, more recent comparable research is lacking, highlighting the urgent need for empirical research in this field. Some contemporary studies with young people from schools and colleges as participants have sought to understand student experiences with gangs (Broadhurst et al., 2008), stop-and-search (Murray et al., 2021) and knife crime (Silvestri et al., 2009; Skarlatidou et al., 2023).

Aye Maung (1995) found that a high proportion (46%) of offending among young people occurred inside schools, and that theft of personal property (76%), assault (62%) and harassment (39%) were among the most common offences committed in schools. Gill and Hearnshaw (1997) found that among 3,986 schools, 57.6% reported that pupils were subjected to violence, where violence took the form of physical abuse, and some acts included weapons or other objects; 1.9% of these schools reported theft with threats or actual violence.

In another study, staff from an inner London comprehensive school expressed that they were increasingly required to deal with conflicts (Porteous, 1998). Tension from the streets was brought into the school setting; thus, teachers invested considerable time in dealing with such incidents (ibid). Name-calling, racist name-calling, threats of violence, assaults, sexual harassment, students carrying weapons, theft and drug-related offences are typical in a school setting (ibid). Such acts can occur inside or outside the school setting (Porteous, 1998; Bottrell et al., 2010). Porteous (1998) observed that many students were victims of violence, antisocial behaviour and bullying in the schools examined in his study. In these schools, “[…] most young people at […] school are at some time likely to be involved in some form of physical and verbal violence, as victims and/or perpetrators” (Porteous, 1998, p. 135). Porteous (2014, p. 50) argues that his research “provided quite graphic and convincing evidence of the high levels of anti-social behaviour and violence which children and young people experience”. Boxford’s (2006) research concurred with Porteous’ findings that assault, vandalism, theft, robbery and break-ins were committed inside schools.

The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (The Edinburgh Study) (Smith and McVie, 2003; McAra and McVie, 2002, 2010) presents findings regarding young people’s offending behaviour. The study comprised 4,300 young people in education in the City of Edinburgh and asked respondents whether they were involved in delinquent behaviour in and out of school. Fourteen response options presented to respondents fell under the umbrella of criminal offences, including vandalism, physical assault, arson, theft, robbery, burglary, graffitiing and carrying a weapon (Smith and McVie, 2003). Of the 4,300 young people, 8.4% of those aged 11−12 years were involved in offending behaviours (Smith and McVie, 2003). The study also found that among 15-year-olds, 33% of the boys and 12% of the girls were involved in violence (McAra and McVie, 2010). Furthermore, 96% of the 4,300 young people admitted to committing at least one offending behaviour by the age of 24, but the study emphasises that most of these are misdemeanours such as shoplifting, graffitiing, not paying the correct bus fare and minor breaches of peace (McAra, 2018).

A survey involving 14- to 15-year-old students from a deprived provincial city in England provides further insight into school behaviour (Hayden, 2011). This study included 1,426 students from 14 mainstream state secondary schools in the city. The study found that 30.8% of the students were bullied either inside or outside the schools, noting that “Students who have been bullied are more likely to worry about being bullied […] [and] feel less safe in school” (Hayden, 2011, p. 98). In this study, more boys admitted to bullying someone compared to girls. In addition, 19.3% of the students reported carrying a weapon, either in or out of school. Unsurprisingly, a lesser number of girls (23%) reported carrying a weapon compared to boys (77%); this is supported by news reports on the current surge in violence, people carrying weapons and knife crime in the UK, which have percolated into schools (Coughlan, 2019). Although Hayden’s (2011) study presented some alarming findings, it also showed that 80.8% of students felt safe or very safe in the classroom, 71.2% felt safe in school but outside the classroom and 54.5% felt safe outside of school. According to Martin et al. (2011b), the most serious offences reported in schools were rape, attempted rape and sexual assault, which often took place outside the school premises but in proximity to the schools. For example, in a rape incident examined in the study, the victim knew the perpetrator, who also attended the same school.

Meanwhile, there has been an increase in the number of teachers who are subject to some degree of physical violence (Neill, 2008). However, limited evidence is available of violence against school staff (Millie and Moore, 2011). In Gill and Hearnshaw’s (1997) study, 21.6% of schools reported that staff members were subject to violence, which took the form of physical abuse and included weapons or other objects in some cases. In a survey of 300 teachers, respondents expressed being verbally or physically assaulted (Wright and Keetley, 2003). The Teacher Support Network (2007) found that students physically assaulted 29% of teachers; approximately 12% of the teachers reported being abused or attacked by students’ parents. In a subsequent study by the Teacher Support Network (2007), teachers claimed to have been physically assaulted by weapons in the forms of objects, furniture, equipment, knives and guns. The Department of Children, Schools and Families published findings highlighting that 176 teachers were subject to violence from their students [Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2008]. In another report based on “On-Track” studies, involving “at risk” students mainly from deprived areas, 29% of the students expressed that they saw a teacher being attacked by a student from the school (Bhabra et al., 2006). Martin (2008) and Martin et al. (2011c, 2012) found that 73.4% of teachers in their study experienced some form of violence, and over 90% stated that they experienced violence during their careers as teachers; among them, 90% and 79% were subject to violence from students.

Behavioural challenges in education are a global problem. Findings from the UK reverberate in the USA; large public schools are often considered crime locations (Steinberg et al., 2019). Burdick-Will (2013) claims that many underperforming schools in the USA, particularly in Chicago, deal with violence regularly:

Violent crime is a serious issue in some of Chicago's public high schools. Many students are exposed to violent crime on a routine basis just by entering school grounds. Just a few high schools each year account for the large majority of violent crimes in the whole district. However, within any given school, violent crime rates appear to fluctuate dramatically year to year without any clear trend over time, either in specific schools or in the district as a whole. (Burdick-Will, 2013, p. 357)

In the USA, schools have experienced violence that has resulted in fatalities; this has led the state, schools and other agencies to prioritise school safety and ensure that the learning environment is safe and conducive to education (Losinski et al., 2014). Such incidents include fatal shootings inside school premises; for instance, in California, a teenager shot and killed several classmates in a high school (The Guardian, 2019). In addition, Neiman (2011) found that in schools, 11% of students in grades 9−12 were involved in a physical fight, 6% of adolescents carried a weapon, 4% drank alcohol and 5% used marijuana on school grounds (Neiman, 2011). According to Espelage et al. (2003), teachers’ experiences of violence are also a concern in the USA. In a study by the American Psychological Association Task Force on Violence Directed Against Teachers (2011), 80% of the teachers reported at least one incident of victimisation; 94% reported being victimised and experiencing offending behaviours from students. Among the 94%, nearly half of the teachers reported that the victimisation incidents included a parent or another adult as a perpetrator. In addition, 72.5% of the teachers stated that they had experienced harassment, 50% reported property offences and 44% reported physical attacks.

Challenging behaviour in the further education sector

Millie and Moore (2011) claim that challenging behaviour has started to permeate the FE sector, supported by Deuchar and Ellis (2013); however, this is not substantiated by evidence. In the UK, the FE sector is a complex and diverse environment; it came into existence in 1821 but was formally established only in 1944 by the Education Act (Lobb, 2017). When the New Labour Party won the election in 1997, its principal objective was to improve the quality of and raise standards in education; consequently, the FE sector has witnessed several reforms.

One of the earliest and among the few publications on behaviour management in FE was a manual by Mitchell et al. (1998) and colleagues in Northern Ireland to support educators in Britain in their efforts to manage student behaviour. Mitchell et al. (1998) argued that an interactive methodology to manage behaviour should be adopted as a whole-college approach. The researchers took a firm stance against the “us and them” attitude when handling behaviour.

A study by the University and College Union led by Parry and Taubman (2013) sheds light on behavioural challenges in the FE sector. Behaviour management became pivotal as more students with behavioural challenges started to attend colleges, which is exacerbated by the lack of support for behaviour management in FE institutions (Millie and Moore, 2011; Deuchar and Ellis, 2013).

Parry and Taubman (2013) argue:

The literature review on behaviour management supported an initial hypothesis that there was little available material on policy around managing behaviour in FE colleges, despite a wealth of material on behaviour management in schools, alongside strong support from the government and media. Although colleges were recognised as being larger with a more diverse student body, some transferable material was nonetheless identified, as well as processes and procedures for policy development. (pp. 3-4)

One of the issues raised, which provides the foundation for policy development in the FE domain, is that the student body in this sector is diverse and comprises adults and young people. Based on recommendations from the Woolf Report (DfE, 2011) and supported by the then-2012 coalition government, FE colleges started enrolling students from the age of 14 years. This enrolment change led to an increasing number of young learners in FE, which is seen as a strategy to avoid the exclusion of 14- to 16-year-olds (Macnab et al., 2008). Some of the behavioural concerns experienced by FE institutions highlighted in the 2013 report include fighting, bullying, drugs, stealing, physical abuse, vandalism and racial abuse (Parry and Taubman, 2013). Parry and Taubman (2013) express that many of these students lead chaotic lives; their learning is impacted by employment issues, unemployment and other personal and social difficulties, leading to behavioural challenges. In addition, the FE sector attracts many disengaged students from mainstream schools and the curricula on offer (Parry and Taubman, 2013). As such, the FE industry provides an alternative qualification for these students that primarily focuses on vocational courses.

Methods

As established above, educational institutions face many challenges related to student behaviour, ranging from simple mischief to criminal behaviour. Hence, schools are keen on discovering innovative ways to deal with such challenges, thereby aspiring to promote discipline, reduce violence, restore good relationships when conflict or harm occurs, improve student attendance and develop the school’s ethos (McCluskey et al., 2008; Hopkins, 2011). Furthermore, the concept of responsibilisation developed in the criminal justice system (Garland, 1996, 2001) has permeated the education sector, where punishment is replaced with reparation, and individuals take responsibility for their actions and make amends for the harm inflicted (Martin et al., 2011a). Therefore, RJ practices have become alluring to schools as an appropriate response to challenging behaviours in school settings (Hopkins, 2011). A plethora of research has focused on the effectiveness and implementation of and satisfaction with RJ processes, practices and outcomes in education. However, as with behavioural challenges in FE, research on RJ in education is also limited (Mayworm et al., 2016; Katic et al., 2020; Zakszeski and Rutherford, 2021; Lodi et al., 2022; Mas-Expósito et al., 2022), especially in the FE sector. To address the abovementioned research gaps, the current study aimed to explore the extent and nature of challenging behaviour in academic institutes and how students and staff explained and understood it. The study was based on a larger PhD project that investigated understanding of and experiences with RJ practices and processes of staff and students, as well as successes, opportunities, constraints and limitations in implementing RJ in FE colleges.

Owing to the nature of the PhD programme, the research adopted an interpretivist exploratory case study design framework and mixed qualitative methods. This research was grounded in constructionism, which is based on the view that there is no objective reality or truth; reality is constructed through interactions with the world. According to constructionism, there are no absolute truths, knowledge is not limited to being created by the senses alone and research focuses on constructing meanings (Sarantakos, 2013, p. 38). The epistemology underlying constructivism is interpretivism. Interpretivists believe that reality is created by social actors and people’s perceptions (Sarantakos, 2013, p. 40); human understanding and experiences are subjective and contribute to the construction of reality in the social world. Therefore, social reality can change and have multiple perspectives (Hennink et al., 2011).

The data collection process consisted of three stages that commenced at the beginning of April 2018 and ended towards the end of May 2019. Although the research was conducted a while ago, issues are still apparent in the sector, particularly in the FE sector, which must consider students’ diverse needs and lived experiences. This suggests that the extent and nature of challenging behaviour in the FE sector is significant and merits further research and analysis.

A non-random and purposive sampling technique (Thomas, 2011) was used to identify participants for semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Purposive sampling allows researchers to “think critically about the parameters of the population we are studying and choose our sample […] carefully on this basis” (Thomas, 2011, p. 141). Stage 1 comprised 20 semi-structured interviews with staff members from a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU), a Special Sixth Form School and four FE colleges. Two of the four colleges are located in North London (NL1 and NL2), one in South East London (SEL) and another in the West Midlands (WM) region. Stages 2 and 3 involved an interpretivist exploratory case study of an FE college, the Restorative College in West Yorkshire. The case study incorporated mixed qualitative methods, including the analysis of documents and RJ cases, 10 semi-structured interviews with staff members and three focus groups with students. Stage 2 explored the staff’s and students’ initial understanding, experiences and implementation of RJ. Stage 3 involved reinterviewing the participants from Stage 2 later in the academic year to follow-up on how their understanding, experiences and implementation had developed over time.

Given the nature of this study, ethical considerations were paramount (Creswell, 2014). We strictly adhered to the British Sociological Association’s (BSA) (2017) statement on ethical practice. Ethical approval from the Middlesex University School of Law Ethics Committee was obtained prior to data collection. The names of all the participants and institutions presented in this paper are pseudonyms. The rationale behind only conducting semi-structured interviews with staff, rather than conducting focus groups, was to minimise inconvenience for the participants and the institution. Staff and teachers/lecturers within the education sector are extremely busy during term time, and their timetables differ, making it almost impossible to bring a group of teaching staff together during term time. Asking staff to give up their time outside their teaching timetable could inconvenience them, especially for teaching staff who usually spend that time preparing lessons, marking work or dealing with other teaching- or student behaviour-related issues. Asking staff to participate during their holidays or outside term time would also be unreasonable and it is highly likely that such proposals would be declined. Semi-structured interviews were ideal, suitable and convenient as requests could be made for an appropriate day and time for discussions. In case of cancellations, rebooking for another convenient time was always an option.

Focus groups were used only for the students. The purpose of focus groups is to facilitate participant discussion (Thomas, 2011). Focus groups enable researchers to recruit and assemble participants (Yin, 2014) and trigger discussions among participants, thereby attempting to draw out their views and opinions (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999; Krueger and Casey, 2009). An advantage of focus groups is that they can help researchers observe how participants interact with each other and facilitate an exchange of their views, bringing topical issues to the forefront of discussion (Morgan, 1998; Culley et al., 2007). Such conversations encourage other group members to contribute to and participate in the discussion, allowing for fruitful and in-depth analysis; thus, the group’s understanding and perceptions regarding a given topic can be examined (Waterton and Wynne, 1999; Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999; Bloor, 2001). Therefore, using focus groups for students was ideal to ensure and stimulate participation, contribution and discussion. Interviews may have limited such opportunities, primarily among unconfident students. The my teaching background helped to ensure inclusivity among participants and encourage, regulate and develop discussions. Using focus groups for students also had a logistical purpose; arranging individual student interviews would have meant disrupting their learning, and it would have been unreasonable to ask students to be available outside of their timetable hours. Arranging a time with teachers at their convenience to hold a focus group with a class randomly proved to be an uncomplicated and effective approach in my the data collection process.

Based on the methodological framework adopted in this study, an interpretive inquirer studies the meanings constructed by social actors to understand the social world; thus, the ideal tool to analyse data for this research was the constant comparative method developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). According to Thomas (2011), the constant comparative method is the primary method used by interpretive inquirers. The basic principle governing this analytical method is that researchers immerse themselves in the themes that capture or summarise the essence of the data. Thus, the constant comparative method (Thomas, 2011) was used to analyse all of our study data.

Findings

Results from this study on behavioural challenges in the FE sector echo the findings from the literature discussed above. However, the findings from this research are more current and capture how the problems of challenging behaviour in general (and of victimisation) have evolved with more significant concerns, particularly around gangs, county lines, criminal and sexual exploitation and the role of social media (Bateman, 2020). For instance, “sexting” is a sexual offence, and in 2018, 37% of young people were cautioned or conditionally cautioned for sexual crimes (Ministry of Justice/Youth Justice Board, 2019). There is also evidence of student sexual violence in higher education (Humphreys and Towl, 2020); such research is lacking in other sectors.

Data from the Restorative College on “Discipline Statistics” from 2017/2018 reveal disciplines/sanctions issued for academic attendance, behaviour, bullying and racism, thus, providing further insight into the types of behaviour challenges faced in the FE sector. In the 2017/2018 academic year, the Restorative College enrolled 11,151 students; 2,343 (21%) of them were issued disciplinary sanctions. Regarding academic challenges, 388 students received disciplinary sanctions; among them, eight students were permanently excluded.

Regarding attendance challenges, 1,180 students were issued disciplinary sanctions and nine were permanently excluded. Furthermore, 737 students were disciplined for behavioural challenges and 36 were permanently excluded. Thirty-two students were issued disciplinary sanctions for bullying and only one was permanently excluded. Finally, six students were disciplined for racism and only one was permanently excluded. There were 55 (0.5%) permanent exclusions and 29 (0.3%) temporary exclusions; thus, 2,259 (20.3%) cases consisted of cautionary and formal warnings.

It should be noted that research focus on exclusions in the FE sector is also scarce; “there is relatively little quantitative research into the causes of success or failure in this environment” (Groot et al., 2017). Further empirical research is fundamental to understanding the rationale and impact of exclusion in the FE sector, which already consists of students excluded from education.

Discussion and conclusion

Challenging behaviour is a common and longstanding element of school and college life. In the 1990s and the 2000s, a particular focus was on challenging (sometimes labelled criminal) school behaviour. The literature reveals that theft, assault/violence against students and staff, harassment, name-calling, racist name-calling, verbal/threats with violence against students and staff, sexual harassment, students carrying weapons and drug-related offences are common in schools (Aye Maung, 1995; Gill and Hearnshaw, 1997; Porteous, 1998; Wright and Keetley, 2003; The Teacher Support Network, 2007; Bhabra et al., 2006; Boxford, 2006; The Teacher Support Network, 2007; HSE, 2008; Martin, 2008; Neill, 2008; Bottrell et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2011c, 2012). Research also identifies that the offending age among young people is between 11 and 24 years (Smith and McVie, 2003; McAra and McVie, 2002, 2010). However, research has primarily focused on schools, whereas the FE sector student body consists of students aged 11+ years and enrols permanently excluded students from schools, PRU and Special Schools, as well as adults. PRUs, an alternative to mainstream schools, specialise in supporting students whose behaviours cause problems. Students who attend a PRU might have been excluded from a mainstream school for behavioural issues or difficulties, among other reasons. Special Schools support students with tailored needs relating to communication and interaction; cognition and learning; social, emotional and mental health; and sensory and physical inputs. Therefore, it seems rather unproductive for the FE sector to rely on resources and tools from other sectors, using which is unlikely to yield positive outcomes in the FE context.

This study establishes that the FE sector comprises a diverse community and can be unstable. Prior research in this field has largely overlooked challenging student behaviours in the FE sector. In this study, the participants reported that conflicts occurred during social times and were exacerbated by social media. In addition, disputes are brought into the college settings from outside, and bullying, gang-related violence and sexual offences are common. Government support and guidance on behavioural management for institutions within the FE sector are also lacking. In this context, further advice, support, research and literature are integral because the FE industry is dynamic, demographically different and diverse from the primary and secondary education sectors.

Clearly, there are also risks associated with drawing attention to these issues, but perhaps the greatest risk lies in denying or ignoring them. Thus, this study sheds light on an underexplored area in the education sector, highlights contemporary concerns/issues that resonate with youth crime research (mainly the focus on gangs and serious violence) and calls for a renewed focus on challenging behaviour in education settings in general and on that in the FE sector in particular to support policy development.

This research also established that the FE community comprises disengaged students excluded from school. It is quite perplexing that although research has focused on exclusion in schools, and that students who are excluded from schools are likely to enrol in an FE institution that also uses exclusions as a disciplinary strategy, research on exclusions in the FE sector is lacking. Although the findings of this study resonate with research in schools, an in-depth empirical enquiry is needed to understand the experiences and impact of exclusion in the FE sector.

The principal argument of this study is the dearth of literature and research on behaviour and other challenges among students, the management of student behaviour and exclusions in UK’s FE sector; thus, more in-depth empirical research is needed to understand and support this sector. This research focus is essential for developing behavioural policies for FE institutions because reliance on guidance and support from primary and secondary schools can be problematic. The FE sector is disparate in terms of space and community both demographically and dynamically. Acts and behaviours that can be classified as crime transpire in institutions. Indeed, literature has highlighted the occurrence of violence against teachers by students, parents and other adults.

The FE institutions in this study experienced many daily challenges. Although this was not the focus of the study and more research is needed, rich data were obtained in this study, justifying the rationale for the staff seeking support with student behaviour and other related challenges. The environment of FE institutions is volatile, or a “melting pot” as described by participants in this study, where conflicts are more likely to erupt due to the community’s diverse student body. These challenges range from possessing a knife or gun to gang-related issues, bullying, conflicts on social media that are brought into institutions and skirmishes. Such challenges can fall within the scope of crime and ASB. The staff expressed feeling vulnerable and ill-equipped to deal with such challenges, which they believe are increasing, and thus seek tools, guidance and support to address these issues.

It should be noted that this research used the interpretivist exploratory case study and mixed qualitative methods, albeit complemented by a review of the existing literature; thus, a limitation of this study is that the findings cannot be generalised (Thomas, 2011; Sarantakos, 2013; Yin, 2014), as the results do not necessarily represent experiences across the FE sector. Future research could use quantitative methods and increase the sample size and access to respondents nationally through technology and online platforms, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of knowledge about and experiences with RJ practices among staff and students in the FE sector.