Project funding was used to extend and further develop a course which had already been running for students in Years 10 & 11. Additional funding meant that the programme could be made available to at least two groups in Years 10 & 11, involving more staff and purchasing and renewing resources for the course.

The course which is called `Learning for Living' was originally devised to produce a curriculum to meet the particular needs of disaffected/disruptive students who might otherwise become poor attenders. The emphasis is on developing life-skills through a range of enjoyable learning experiences, a large proportion of which take place off site.

The course is modular in form, accredited by NPRA and includes: problem-solving, developing enterprise, leadership skills, developing organisational abilities, communication skills and interpersonal relationships.

Although the course was originally designed to motivate the disaffected, it is an open option. In practice it tends to attract low-attainers and the more disaffected students, but some of last year's participants are expected to gain eight C-grades in their GCSE.

The funding from the project brought more teachers on to the programme, giving an SSR of 16:2. It was possible to develop a team-teaching approach and, in fact, was seen partly as a staff development activity. At least two teachers now wish to be involved in this kind of teaching with low-achieving students. (One spin-off has been to try to encourage more departments to use team-teaching methods by bringing groups together as this is often helpful in managing behaviour, but this has not been successful to date.)

The course takes place over two sessions which is a full afternoon. Students who are otherwise poor attenders do attend for these sessions and value the course highly. Many have become far more articulate as a result of being involved in the course which encourages good communication, problem solving and social skills although they are not taught under these explicit headings. Whilst some of their activities sound exciting and offer an `alternative curriculum' (e.g. driving and pre-driving courses, canoeing etc.) the course sets clear behavioural expectations. There are firm rules e.g. punctuality for a departure time (or the `bus leaves without them), appropriate dress (or a student can't go). Appropriate behaviour is rewarded, and within the base room there are rewards and privileges such as making a hot drink.

Staff new to teaching the course and unfamiliar with the teaching methods have, themselves, to explore the boundaries that are set. The benefit of having two staff is that behaviour is easier to manage, there are fewer `attention-seeking' misbehaviours, because there is more attention in a small group. In the same way students are more engaged in active learning. Both staff and students often see the option as `an easy option - a `doss" but soon find out that there are demands made on both teaching and learning.

This was one of the few projects where I had access to evaluations from students. Among their comments are many which are pertinent to an evaluation of attempts to reduce disaffection and disruption.:

• "I knew what to do at interview."
• "My attitude has improved - this course was sometimes the only reason for coming to school."
• "I can think more positively about other subjects."
• "You get time to talk."
• "The teachers treat you as an adult."

Other staff who teach more traditional subjects have commented on how the communication skills of some of these students have improved and noted an attitude shift. The course leader has also identified the fact that despite its structure, there is less pressure put on students in this course and that, in itself, may be useful to help some students cope with the demands of the school.

The course is very expensive to run and is normally funded from capitation and from events supported by the students' enterprise activities (including making and selling snacks). Students also make a contribution towards some of the out-of school activities. The course will continue to run next year, and the SENCO is to become more involved in working alongside the programme. New modules (e.g. Tourism) may be introduced and staff are considering the development of GNVQ and the introduction of Key Skills.

The course attracts an equal gender balance, and appears to be a successful approach to raising the attendance of Year 10 & 11 students. Staff value the course as a 'vehicle for building good staff pupil relationships' using 'real situations which the pupils understand'.