| Abstract: | Since the incorporation of the further education (FE) sector student drop-out has become an issue for policy makers, and colleges with higher than average rates of non-completion have been penalised. This process, which is consistent with the 'new managerialist' approach described by Randle and Brady (1997) in an earlier volume of this Journal, results in a loss of funding and 'naming and shaming' via inspection reports and performance tables. It is suggested that this policy response to student drop-out represents a mechanistic reaction to the 'standards' agenda and could impede other policy priorities such as widening participation. The paper examines the growing body of research evidence which challenges the view that drop-out is caused by colleges which 'don't care'. Studies of the influence of factors external to colleges, such as financial hardship, feeder schools and the impact of 'habitus' on a student's disposition, illustrate the problem of trying to reduce the complex issue of drop-out to a single, generalisable cause. The paper concludes that the development of a more sophisticated analytical model is necessary if student retention is to be improved. |
