When a secondary-aged pupil repeatedly refuses work, leaves lessons, receives sanctions or stops attending school, it is easy for the language around them to become increasingly negative.
They are described as unmotivated. Defiant. Disruptive. Avoidant. Not interested in learning.
Sometimes, the conversation moves quickly towards what the pupil needs to change: they need to make better choices, become more resilient, follow expectations or understand the consequences of their behaviour.
But what happens when we look beyond the behaviour?
What if disengagement is not simply something located within a pupil, but a response to the conditions they experience around them?
This was the starting point for a practice-informed inquiry I carried out into persistent disengagement in secondary schools. I wanted to explore what the research tells us about engagement, but also to compare this with what pupils were communicating through conversations, observations and support plans.
The study brought together two sources of information:
- a thematic review of UK research and practice guidance relating to secondary engagement and disengagement;
- an analysis of 14 anonymised pupil records, including pupil-voice work, PERMA(H) conversations, observations, provision plans and visit records.
Although the pupils’ circumstances varied, the same message appeared repeatedly:
Engagement is conditional.
Pupils were more able to participate when they experienced school as safe, predictable, manageable and respectful. Their engagement reduced when they experienced uncertainty, overload, public exposure, relational conflict or a loss of dignity and control.
This does not mean that schools are responsible for every difficulty a pupil experiences. Nor does it mean that expectations should disappear. It suggests, however, that before asking how we can make a pupil engage, we should examine the conditions in which we are asking them to do so.
Five conditions that shape engagement
Five broad themes emerged from the research review.
1. Belonging, relationships and relational safety
Pupils are more likely to engage when they feel noticed, valued and understood. This does not require every pupil to have a close relationship with every member of staff. In many cases, one dependable adult can provide an important bridge into school.
The pupils in the study frequently identified one teacher, pastoral worker or member of inclusion staff who helped school feel manageable.
However, the quality of the interaction mattered as much as the availability of support.
Pupils talked about wanting adults to:
- listen properly;
- speak politely;
- avoid shouting;
- be fair and consistent;
- explain decisions;
- avoid treating them like small children;
- give feedback that felt genuine rather than exaggerated or false.
These may sound like relatively small details. For the pupils involved, they were central to whether they felt safe enough to participate.
Where pupils believed that adults were unfair, dismissive or inconsistent, difficulties often escalated. A disagreement about a seat, a public correction or an unresolved bullying concern could become much more than an isolated incident. Repeated experiences of this kind shaped how pupils viewed the lesson, the adult and, eventually, the wider school system.
Relationships were therefore not an optional addition to learning. They influenced pupils’ willingness to enter lessons, attempt difficult work, accept help, recover from mistakes and return following conflict.
2. Transitions and the secondary engagement dip
National evidence suggests that pupils’ enjoyment, trust, sense of safety and emotional connection with school often decline during the move into secondary education.
This should make us cautious about viewing every disengaged Year 7 or Year 8 pupil as an individual anomaly.
Secondary education introduces a substantial increase in complexity:
- a larger physical environment;
- multiple teachers;
- frequent movement between rooms;
- less continuity of adult support;
- changing expectations across subjects;
- greater organisational demands;
- increased public comparison and assessment.
For some pupils, particularly those who are neurodivergent, these changes create a considerable additional load.
However, transition is not limited to the move between primary and secondary school. Pupils experience repeated “mini-transitions” throughout every school day: arriving at school, moving through crowded corridors, entering a different classroom, adjusting to a change of teacher, coping with an unexpected seating plan or beginning an unfamiliar task.
The practice evidence showed that engagement often varied according to these moments. Mondays, mornings, assemblies, post-lunch lessons, staff changes and particular movements around school were repeatedly identified as difficult.
This suggests that disengagement may not be constant or global. It can be tied to predictable points in the day when demands temporarily exceed a pupil’s available capacity.
3. Emotional safety, anxiety and avoidance
Disengagement is often interpreted as a lack of motivation. The study suggested that it can instead function as a way of managing distress.
This may include obvious avoidance, such as refusing to enter a lesson, leaving the room or not attending school. It can also appear in quieter forms:
- putting a head down;
- waiting to copy an answer;
- repeatedly checking what to do;
- zoning out;
- withdrawing from interaction;
- becoming unusually compliant;
- attempting to remain unnoticed;
- avoiding answering or reading aloud.
In these situations, the pupil may be physically present but not emotionally available for learning.
A strong theme across the cases was anxiety about public exposure. Pupils worried about giving a wrong answer, appearing foolish, reading aloud, completing work in front of others or being publicly corrected.
Some appeared settled and compliant in school while experiencing considerable internal anxiety and exhaustion. Their distress became more visible later, often at home.
This is particularly important when considering masking. A pupil who causes little difficulty in school is not necessarily coping well. Quiet compliance may conceal a high internal cost.
The study also reinforced the idea that emotionally based school avoidance exists on a spectrum. A pupil does not need to be entirely absent to be experiencing school-related distress. Repeated lateness to one lesson, frequent requests to leave, increasing withdrawal, partial attendance or reliance on a safe base may all be early indications that participation is becoming unsustainable.
4. Environment, predictability and load
The environment is sometimes treated as the background against which learning occurs. For many pupils, it determines whether learning is accessible at all.
The pupils’ records contained repeated references to:
- noise and shouting;
- alarms and sudden sounds;
- crowded spaces;
- temperature;
- hunger and thirst;
- seating position;
- having people behind them;
- unfamiliar adults;
- unclear instructions;
- unpredictable changes;
- moving between lessons.
These factors were not described as minor preferences. Pupils linked them directly to anxiety, concentration, conflict, avoidance and the need to escape.
Seating was especially significant. Some pupils needed to be at the back to reduce their sense of visibility. Others concentrated better at the front. Some needed to sit near a calm peer, while others needed space. Disputes about seating occasionally became the starting point for much larger cycles of conflict and sanction.
Similarly, pupils often engaged more successfully when lessons were clearly structured. Visible models, manageable first steps, chunked instructions and clarity about what would happen next reduced uncertainty and made independent participation more likely.
For neurodivergent pupils, sensory, social, cognitive and organisational demands may accumulate across the day. What appears to be a refusal to learn may be a logical response to overload.
5. Agency, relevance and competence
Engagement increased when pupils felt that they had some influence over their experience, could succeed and understood the purpose of what they were doing.
It reduced when they anticipated failure, humiliation or loss of control.
The pupils in the study frequently wanted adults to speak to them respectfully and provide choices without removing boundaries. They wanted some control over their seating, how they entered a task, how they asked for help and how they could briefly step away when overwhelmed.
This did not necessarily mean that they wanted to avoid all expectations. Often, they were seeking a way to participate without losing face.
A request to leave the room, for example, could be interpreted as task avoidance. It could also be understood as an attempt to prevent escalation, regulate privately and preserve dignity.
Likewise, a pupil who said that a subject was boring or pointless might not have been rejecting the curriculum itself. The subject may have become associated with an unsafe teacher relationship, an uncomfortable seat, unclear tasks, public performance or repeated sanctions.
Relevance was therefore about more than whether the content was interesting. Pupils appeared to be asking:
- Can I succeed here?
- Will I be embarrassed?
- Will I be treated fairly?
- Do I understand what is expected?
- Can I ask for help without drawing attention to myself?
- Do I have a safe route back if things go wrong?
When the answer to several of these questions was no, motivation understandably declined.
What the pupil evidence revealed
The findings from the anonymised pupil records closely reflected the research literature.
Across the cases, common barriers included:
- relational conflict or perceived unfairness;
- unresolved bullying;
- fear of mistakes or public exposure;
- unclear and open-ended tasks;
- excessive verbal information;
- sensory and physical discomfort;
- fatigue and disrupted sleep;
- cumulative demands and masking;
- behaviour systems experienced as punitive or meaningless.
Equally, some factors repeatedly supported engagement:
- one trusted adult;
- access to a predictable, calm base;
- respectful and private interactions;
- clear task structure;
- visible examples and manageable first steps;
- controlled choices;
- predictable exit and return routines;
- connection with interests, strengths and identity.
One of the most significant findings was that many pupils were not universally disengaged.
They engaged in particular subjects, with particular adults or under particular conditions. A pupil might complete complex written work independently in one lesson but withdraw in another. Another might appear uninterested until the task became concrete and visible. A pupil who described school as pointless might demonstrate commitment, accomplishment and ambition through football or another area of personal identity.
This is better understood as conditional engagement than as a fixed characteristic of the pupil.
Instead of asking, “Why is this pupil disengaged?”, it may be more useful to ask:
“Under which conditions does this pupil become more or less available for learning?”
A cycle schools need to notice
A recurring pattern across several cases was:
stress or uncertainty → disagreement or escape → sanction → stronger negative association → increased future avoidance
A pupil might enter a lesson already anxious about the teacher, seating or task. A relatively small interaction then became the point of conflict. The pupil left or argued, received a detention and returned to the next lesson with even less trust and a stronger expectation that things would go badly.
The original trigger was often lost as attention moved towards the behaviour that followed.
Consequences may still be necessary. However, if the conditions that triggered the incident remain unchanged, sanctions alone are unlikely to restore engagement.
A brief repair conversation, an agreed seat, a quieter correction, a clearer task entry point or a planned reset route may do more to interrupt the cycle than repeatedly increasing the consequence.
The pupils who are present but not available
Attendance and engagement are connected, but they are not the same.
Attendance systems understandably focus on pupils who are absent. The study highlighted a quieter group who may be overlooked: pupils who attend school but are no longer meaningfully participating.
They may sit silently, copy without understanding, avoid attracting attention, complete the minimum, repeatedly seek reassurance or appear compliant while experiencing high anxiety and fatigue.
Their attendance figures may initially look acceptable. Their behaviour records may not prompt concern. However, their disengagement can be an early warning that attendance itself is becoming fragile.
By the time avoidance becomes obvious, the pupil may have experienced months or years of increasing overload, relational difficulty or emotional withdrawal.
Schools therefore need ways of noticing changes in engagement before absence becomes the only visible measure of difficulty.
From fixing pupils to designing conditions
The practical implications of the study do not require another large intervention or complicated programme.
Many of the most effective changes are small adjustments to ordinary routines.
Create predictable relational anchors
Identify one adult who provides a brief, reliable check-in at known pressure points. This does not need to become a lengthy pastoral intervention. A calm greeting, acknowledgment of a difficult lesson ahead and reminder of an agreed support can provide continuity within a fragmented secondary day.
Protect dignity during difficulty
Where possible, correct privately, avoid requiring pupils to explain themselves publicly and use calm, consistent language.
Simple phrases might include:
“I can see this is not working yet. Let’s reset.”
“You do not need to explain in front of everyone.”
“Start with this first step. I’ll come back quietly.”
Treat seating as an access tool
Rather than repeatedly negotiating individual seating requests, schools could offer a small, agreed range of options linked to learning: reduced visibility, easier access to support, proximity to a calm peer or access to a short reset route.
Make lesson structure visible
Pupils benefit from knowing what is happening, how long it will last and what comes next.
A visible lesson route, worked example and clearly marked first step can reduce the cognitive and emotional load involved in beginning work.
Reduce unnecessary public performance
Not every pupil needs to read aloud, answer without preparation or have mistakes exposed publicly in order to learn.
Paired rehearsal, mini-whiteboards, private checking, opt-in reading and low-profile help-seeking can preserve challenge while reducing threat.
Plan both exit and return
Some pupils need a brief, agreed route to regulate outside the immediate situation. The important element is not simply allowing an exit, but making return predictable.
A pupil might use a card, take three minutes in an agreed space and return to a clearly highlighted restart point without being questioned publicly.
This turns escape into a structured route back to learning.
Map barriers rather than simply recording incidents
When attendance or lesson engagement is deteriorating, ask:
- Which lesson, space, adult or time of day is hardest?
- What happens immediately before the pupil withdraws or leaves?
- Where does the pupil manage better?
- What is different in that environment?
- What is the smallest realistic next step?
A simple record using four headings – trigger, protective factor, next step and named adult – may be more useful than a lengthy description of the behaviour after the event.
Make adjustments small, shared and sustainable
Schools under pressure may already understand much of this practice. The difficulty is often consistency rather than knowledge.
Instead of launching another whole-school initiative, a school might test three routines in one year group or department:
- greeting pupils predictably;
- displaying the lesson route;
- using an agreed reset and return process.
The approach should be tight enough to create consistency but light enough for staff to sustain.
Questions for secondary schools
The study left me with a series of questions that may be useful for schools reflecting on persistent disengagement:
- Do our pupils have at least one adult who knows them well?
- Are there predictable points in the day when engagement deteriorates?
- Which pupils are attending but becoming less available for learning?
- Could apparently minor disputes be connected to dignity, visibility or uncertainty?
- Are our behaviour responses helping pupils return, or deepening negative associations?
- Do pupils know how to ask for help without attracting attention?
- Are sensory and environmental adjustments treated as access tools or rewards?
- Do our pupil-voice methods work for pupils who find abstract or hypothetical questions difficult?
- Can staff easily identify the first small step that helps a pupil re-enter learning?
- Are we measuring presence, or are we also noticing participation?
A final reflection
Persistent disengagement is complex. There will never be one explanation or one strategy that applies to every pupil.
The study does, however, suggest a clear change in emphasis.
Instead of beginning with:
“What is wrong with this pupil?”
we can begin with:
“What is making engagement difficult in this situation?”
Instead of asking only how the pupil should change, we can consider what might change within the relationship, task, environment or system.
Engagement appears to grow from four closely connected conditions:
belonging, safety, manageability and agency.
When pupils feel known, when expectations are predictable, when learning feels achievable and when they can preserve dignity while asking for help, participation becomes more possible.
This is not about lowering expectations or removing boundaries. It is about designing routes through which pupils can meet them.
The overall shift is simple but significant:
from fixing pupils to designing conditions.
Sources and further reading
This inquiry drew on the following research, statutory guidance and practice resources:
- Department for Education: Working together to improve school attendance
- Statutory guidance exploring the responsibilities of schools, trusts and local authorities, including the importance of identifying and addressing the complex barriers that can affect attendance.
- Education Endowment Foundation: Improving Behaviour in Schools
Evidence-informed guidance emphasising the multiple influences on behaviour, the importance of knowing pupils well and the protective role of supportive relationships with school staff.
A national study examining pupil engagement across primary and secondary education, including the significant decline in enjoyment, trust, agency and safety reported during the transition into secondary school.
- Jerrim, J. and Kaye, N.: The decline in pupils’ emotional engagement with school: How does England compare to other countries?
A UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities working paper comparing changes in pupils’ belonging, enjoyment and feelings of safety across countries and stages of education.
- Bristol Educational Psychology Service: Emotionally Based School Avoidance Guidance
Guidance for schools and families examining the emotional, relational and environmental factors that can contribute to school avoidance.
- Oxfordshire Educational Psychology Service: Emotionally Based School Avoidance School Toolkit
A practical toolkit covering early identification, school-based risk factors, pupil voice, belonging, trusted relationships and graduated support.
- Neuroinclusive Education Network, formerly the Autism Education Trust: Autism Design Principles for Schools
Guidance on designing educational environments that are more predictable, supportive and accessible for autistic and other neurodivergent learners.
That SEND Teacher 