This paper explores the concept of young people’s agency, addressing the question: How can we better understand young people’s achievement of agency? Drawing on two studies (see below), I argue that educational and broader contexts have roles to play in shaping the agency that young people can achieve. An analysis using a temporal-relational ecological understanding of agency (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998), makes visible some of the enablers and constraints that young people can face in particular educational contexts. Empowerment discourses, fashionable in current policy and practice, are reflected in Scottish legislation for children and young people and evidenced by duties on public bodies to consult children and young people in policy making (see for example; Scottish Executive, 1995, 2000, 2004). The Scottish Government’s (2007) recognition of a strong association between under-achievement and unemployment is evident in increased flexibility in the senior phase of secondary education, to allow students more choice (ibid., 2010), and in the trend to encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning, something that Davies (2006) terms ‘responsibilisation’ (Davies, 2006). This policy turn suggests that the agency young people achieve is important and that education has a key role to play in fostering it. However, ecological perspectives on agency (Biesta & Tedder, 2006) would suggest that this is problematic. Whilst education can develop individual capacity, this is not the same as agency, which is also shaped by the conditions of educational and wider contexts. This paper discusses two cases, using this ecological framing of agency. The first case studies secondary school students, labelled as non-attenders, and their opportunities in the post-compulsory phase of schooling. The second explores an empowerment group for care-experienced young adults (18-21) and their experience of schooling and post compulsory education. In both cases, educational trajectories were tailored to suit performative agendas of schools, rather than educational needs; but in the second case the existence of developed social networks helped these students achieve agency despite this. The data were generated through recorded interviews. Initially simple coding or ‘descriptive’ coding was applied to the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994), and then thematic coding. The cross-case analysis of the interviews included an iterative process of engagement with the research literature, including the application of Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) agency framing. This research followed the principles of the British Educational Research Association Ethical Guidelines (BERA, 2018).

Biesta, G. J. J., & Tedder, M. (2006). How Is Agency Possible? Towards an Ecological Understanding of Agency-as-Achievement. Learning Lives: Learning, Identity, and Agency in the Life Course. Working Paper Five, Exeter: Teaching and Learning Research Programme. British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2018). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Fourth Edition. Davies, B. (2006) Subjectification: the relevance of Butler’s analysis for education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27 (4), pp. 425-438. Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A. (1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London, UK: Sage. Scottish Executive. (1995). Children (Scotland) Act. Edinburgh, UK: HMSO. Scottish Executive (2000) Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act. Edinburgh, UK: HMSO. Scottish Executive. (2004). The local government in Scotland Act 2003. Community planning: Statutory guidance. Edinburgh, UK: Crown Copyright.