ABSTRACT The role of the education sector has expanded into areas of social welfare. A key influence, relates to the disintegration of public-funded organisations responsible for mental health and social welfare provision. This article considers the policy drive for a broadened welfare mandate within education settings. Drawing on illustrations of welfare-orientated teaching, the article explores the extent to which a welfare agenda influenced teaching practise and education provision for marginalised youth enrolled on an employability course in an FE college. During academic years 2013 to 2015, empirical research was conducted with seven tutors and 26 students enrolled on a Level 1 employability course at a large FE college in South East England. Key findings discovered that there was a disproportionate focus on welfare duties when teaching youth with complex backgrounds. Fieldwork data mainly highlighted complications, contradictions and the counter-productive nature of welfare-orientated teaching: it gave rise to ‘social welfare tutors’; they have a diminished academic focus and were wholly engaged in welfare duties, reducing the course to something akin to therapy and welfare practise. Despite good intentions, generally, such practise directly reinforced disadvantage and marginalised participants from essential provision that granted access to a range of further study and training opportunities within the setting.

中文翻译：

---

学生福利：复杂性，困境和矛盾

摘要教育部门的作用已扩大到社会福利领域。一个关键影响与负责精神卫生和社会福利提供的公共资助组织的解体有关。本文考虑了在教育环境中扩大福利规定的政策驱动力。本文以福利为导向的教学插图为例，探讨了福利议程在多大程度上影响了在FE高校就业课程的边缘化青年的教学实践和教育提供。在2013年至2015年的学术年中，对7名导师和26名学生进行了实证研究，这些学生在英格兰东南部的一所大型FE学院就读了1级就业能力课程。主要发现发现，在教有复杂背景的青年时，对福利义务的关注不成比例。实地调查数据主要突出了福利导向教学的复杂性，矛盾性和适得其反的性质：它产生了“社会福利导师”；他们的学术重点减弱了，全心全意地从事福利工作，从而使课程减少到类似于治疗和福利实践的水平。尽管有良好的意愿，但总体而言，这种做法直接加剧了不利条件，并使基本规定中的参与者边缘化，而这些基本规定允许在该环境中获得一系列进一步的学习和培训机会。它产生了“社会福利导师”；他们的学术重点减弱了，全心全意地从事福利工作，从而使课程减少到类似于治疗和福利实践的水平。尽管有良好的意愿，但总体而言，这种做法直接加剧了不利条件，并使基本规定中的参与者边缘化，而这些基本规定允许在该环境中获得一系列进一步的学习和培训机会。它产生了“社会福利导师”；他们的学术重点减弱了，全心全意地从事福利工作，从而使课程减少到类似于治疗和福利实践的水平。尽管有良好的意愿，但总体而言，这种做法直接加剧了不利条件，并使基本规定中的参与者边缘化，而这些基本规定允许在该环境中获得一系列进一步的学习和培训机会。