|
Scottish Traveller Education Programme
|
 |
Resources: Articles: TEACHERS AND GYPSY TRAVELLERSGwynedd Lloyd, Joan Stead, Elizabeth Jordan and Claire Norrisclick here for a printer-friendly version of this article
SYNOPSISThis paper discusses some of the findings from a project which set out to investigate how schools in Scotland perceive, and respond to, the culture and behaviour of Traveller children, in respect of behaviour, exclusion and difference. We discuss, in particular, how school staff described and made sense of the behaviour of Gypsy Traveller pupils. The findings raise issues about the relationship between difference and deviance and the extent to which schools are able to respond to cultural diversity, especially when this challenges notions of 'normality' in school attendance and behaviour. They confirm the view that disciplinary exclusion, while on one level a behavioural issue, is also inherently connected to the broader social exclusion of particular groups of pupils, in relation to class, disadvantage, ethnicity and gender (Booth 1996). INTRODUCTIONThis paper raises issues about how teachers define discipline and good order in schools. As Munn, Johnstone and Sharp (1998) point out, the level of indiscipline in schools is an emotive topic. Thus any aspect of a pupil's actions which might be seen to be threatening to good order may be viewed negatively by teachers. The present study looked at how certain behaviour by children from Gypsy Traveller families can become construed as disruptive to 'good' discipline. There are a number ways in which this construction of Gypsy Traveller children's behaviour as problematic can be understood. Sometimes this can be seen as lack of cultural knowledge by teachers of Gypsy Travellers' lives, equally sometimes a lack of knowledge, or indeed a rejection, by the pupils of the norms and values of schools. Teachers themselves may often not reflect critically on the culture of schools; rather they may individualise problems, focussing on the single pupil. The position of Gypsy Travellers in Scotland as a marginalised group, many of whom feel under threat from the settled world, can be reflected in their experience of school. There is a parallel here with the experiences of some disabled groups who have argued that the response of the educational system to difference involves a privatising of controversial public issues (Troyna and Vincent 1996). GYPSY TRAVELLER CHILDREN IN SCOTLANDThe Council of Europe identifies two main groups of Travellers, Gypsy Travellers and Occupational Travellers, the latter group including, for example, Show and barge people. (Others sometimes include a third group, 'new age' travellers.) Our project focused on Gypsy Travellers and Show Travellers; however the findings discussed below show a more complex situation for Gypsy Travellers in school, so this paper concentrates on that group. It is difficult to know the number of Gypsy Travellers in Scotland. Estimates vary from three to five thousand nomadic Gypsy Travellers and possibly another twelve thousand housed (Gentleman 1992, Liegeois 1987). Traditional and understandable fear of authority probably means that any official figures underestimate the numbers who think of themselves as Gypsy Travellers and who share common cultural beliefs (Braid 1997, Reid 1997). There is disagreement among both Traveller communities and academics over the legal recognition of Gypsy Travellers as an ethnic minority in terms of the race relations legislation. Although this is formally recognised through a Court of Appeal judgement in England, this is not always considered to be legally applicable in Scotland (Jordan 1996). However, in sociological terms they clearly constitute an ethnic minority with shared cultural practices and norms. One Scottish Traveller writes that they are just as confused as others about their ethnic origins (Reid 1997). In Scotland the words Tinker, Tinkler and Gypsy have historically been used to describe them. The literature suggests that there were various groups of travellers in Scotland prior to the documented arrival in Europe of groups described as Egyptians or Gypsies (Fraser 1992). Scottish Gypsy Travellers do however now share features common to European Gypsy Traveller groups, often referred to as Rom or Roma. These include notions of descent, pollution taboos and a traditional wish to be self employed, rather than engage in wage labour, and a commitment to the idea of nomadism, even when not travelling. Their culture, like others, is permeable and constantly redefined and by travelling on the edges of settled society is also responsive to and affected by the mainstream culture. The historic language, Cant, of Scottish Gypsy Travellers reflects this complex history and includes many words common to other Traveller languages, particularly Irish Shelta, but also significant words from Romani, as well as from Scots and Gaelic. Travellers, like settled communities, also have identities that are to do with race, gender, class and nationality (Lloyd & Norris 1998). While there is some diversity of opinion over the correct descriptive terminology the term Gypsy Traveller seems to be the most often currently used by organisations representing the community itself, such as by the Scottish Gypsy Traveller Association. By Gypsy Traveller we mean those who consider themselves to be part of this community, whether still nomadic or housed, and who share the common knowledge, speech, customs and manners historically associated with that culture. Our definition is, therefore, principally one of self ascription. Research previously undertaken by the Scottish Traveller Education Project (STEP) and by Save the Children Fund (SCF) suggest a low level of school attendance by Gypsy Traveller children, especially at the secondary stage (Jordan 1996, SCF 1996). There is an official dispensation which allows for a reduction in the number of school attendances required from Traveller pupils, to allow for seasonal work travelling. Economic and legal changes in recent years do however make it increasingly difficult for Gypsy Travellers to maintain their nomadic life style. THE RESEARCH - METHODSThe impetus for the project was provided by evidence, both anecdotal and from other research in England and Scotland, that some Traveller children were being excluded from school (OFSTED 1996). The research questions sought to explore whether our initial understanding, that Traveller pupils' behaviour was an issue in some schools, was substantiated by closer investigation. If some Traveller pupils' behaviour was an issue, how was it described and made sense of by teachers, pupils and parents? What responses were made to the behaviour and what strategies were used by schools? Interviews were conducted with a range of staff (31), mainly learning support, guidance and school managers, in twelve schools, urban and rural, where Travellers were known to have attended and with Show Traveller parents (10) and young people (6) and Gypsy Traveller parents (7) and young people (18) in different parts of Scotland. Traveller support workers, mainly teachers, were also interviewed (15). Interviewers used a semi-structured interview schedule as a topic guide but our aim was primarily to create an interview climate where teachers, parents, children and young people felt able to talk freely without too much control from the researcher. This approach is described by some researchers as a non-directive interview (Cohen & Manion 1994). This was particularly important for Traveller parents and young people, understandably suspicious, who needed to be reassured that we really were going to listen to what they had to say. Much of the content and direction of the interviews was determined principally by the respondent, the interviewer using the schedule to ask questions or raise issues if these had not come up. (The interview guides are given in the Appendix.) In this kind of research understanding develops throughout the project, during the process of identifying and checking emerging patterns and themes, with these necessarily informing future interviews. Other questions were, therefore, introduced as the research developed. For example, it was suggested by several respondents early in the research that the style used by Traveller pupils to address teachers might be considered inappropriate by some teachers. So in later interviews if this was not raised by the teacher the interviewer might ask about it. Care was taken however to avoid making suggestions or leading respondents. The majority of interviews were taped and transcribed; a small number of respondents preferred not to be recorded and in these cases detailed notes were taken. Some deliberate validation was also built into the project through the process of interviewing of Traveller support staff. Their views were important - as a group they have a mixed 'outsider / insider' status working both on Traveller sites and with numbers of teachers and schools. They were thus able to offer a valuable comparative perspective. In the early stages of the project six Traveller support workers were interviewed together, using focus group techniques and recorded with tape and video. Three were subsequently reinterviewed towards the end of the project with the purpose of obtaining their views of the developing analysis. We interviewed both housed and mobile Show and Gypsy Travellers, identified and contacted for us by 'gatekeepers', individuals with an existing relationships of trust with Traveller groups. The Travellers interviewed were not chosen as in any way representative of their communities; they had something to say and were willing to talk to us. We recognised that these groups are heterogeneous and so aimed to gather personal experiences from which we could form impressions and develop themes, rather than generalisations. This study is both small scale and qualitatively based and is therefore open to the kind of criticism made of similar work on the processes that are involved in the reproduction of inequalities in educational experiences (Gillborn 1998, Foster et al 1996). We make no claim for scientific neutrality, indeed we are explicit that our interest stems from a concern for social justice. We have nonetheless maintained a focus on issues of validity through a process of critical reflexivity. The criteria for plausibility and credibility cannot be divorced from the assumptions of the individual critic, whose views may reflect particular political, methodological, class-based, gendered and racialized assumptions. (Gillborn 1998, p41). As Gillborn (1998) argues, research on race and ethnicity must like other research be open to critique. Our methods and our findings are open to dispute; their validity will be further explored in that very process of argument. We hope that we will at least have prompted such argument. THE RESEARCH - FINDINGSThe research looked at the school experiences of both Occupational (Show) Travellers and Gypsy Travellers and the whole findings are described in a project report (Lloyd et al 1999). A key finding of the study was the difference in the views of school staff on the two groups of Travellers. Teachers in schools where Show Travellers had attended were almost all highly positive about having Show Traveller pupils in school and did not to see their presence as disruptive, other than in relation to the disruptiveness to the routines of the class because of irregular attendance. Although teachers saw irregular attendance and absence from school as perhaps the major issue for both groups, the pupils themselves, Show and Gypsy Travellers, identified name-calling by other pupils as the strongest negative feature of their school experience. This paper concentrates on the views of school and Traveller support staff concerning Gypsy Travellers in school. Here the findings, discussed below in more detail, are more complex, than for Show Travellers - they suggest that for some schools and some teachers the behaviour of Gypsy Traveller pupils was perceived to be problematic and that some pupils had been formally excluded. The paper also refers briefly where appropriate to the findings from interviews with parents and pupils. WAS THE BEHAVIOUR OF GYPSY TRAVELLER CHILDREN AN ISSUE FOR SCHOOLS?There were a wide variety of views and perceptions expressed by the staff interviewed. In some respects they reflect those likely to be argued about all children in school in that some children's behaviour is considered to be a problem by some teachers, in some schools and at some times. The notion of behavioural difficulties is inevitably subjective and contextually varied (Cullen et al 1996, Munn & Lloyd 1998).
Most of the school and Traveller support staff did describe some incidents and circumstances where schools had defined the behaviour of some Gypsy Traveller children as problematic. A small number said that there had never been any particular issue with the behaviour of the Traveller children. Sometimes this was then contradicted by reference to circumstances where there had been problems. In some secondary schools not all staff were aware that the school had identified and responded to perceived problems. For example, the behaviour support teacher in a secondary school described the exclusion and referral to the Children's Hearing System of two Gypsy Traveller girls but two of her colleagues appeared, not to be aware of this. In secondary schools there were sometimes quite different views expressed by staff in the same school, for example the four teaching colleagues quoted below.
There were no teachers who argued that the behaviour of all Gypsy Traveller pupils was a problem for the school. Several made a point of beginning with a positive statement, even when they subsequently mentioned difficulties with individual children.
The kind of difficulties that were described are discussed under the following headings, derived from the analysis of interview data. These are discussed in more detail in the next section.
HOW DID TEACHERS MAKE SENSE OF TRAVELLER BEHAVIOUR?Again, there was a considerable range of views and understandings of Gypsy Travellers' actions in school. The interviews often contained quite contradictory observations, for example several teachers stated that they felt that the difficulties presented by a particular pupil were not related to cultural background but then went on to give examples that suggested that the teacher was indeed viewing the behaviour as significantly influenced by their background. Sometimes teachers were emphatic in their view that the cultural background of the pupil was not a factor in the teacher's perceptions, implying that perhaps to recognise difference was in itself inappropriate.
In some instances the teacher's own implicit prejudice or stereotyping was apparent. For example, a teacher in charge of a secondary special class, where several Gypsy Traveller young people had been placed, talked 'positively' about two pupils, contrasting this with looking like a 'tinker'.
Perhaps paradoxically, the teachers who acknowledged that schools could face problems with the behaviour of Traveller pupils were those with the most knowledge and empathy with cultural difference, as in the case of Traveller support teachers. They were the most likely to say there is an issue which they see in the schools they visit. They were clearer in their positive acknowledgement of difference and their perception of how this difference might become constructed as difficulty by schools. Several support teachers and other staff made the point that all children can choose to be difficult in school and also that sometimes Traveller children face difficulties in their lives which are not peculiar to Traveller communities. Thus, though some Traveller children were seen to have required extra support in school because of family bereavement, alcohol or other drug use or physical or sexual abuse, in this respect they would be no different from children from the settled community. Perceived lack of cooperation in class, eg not following instructions: Some difficulties may be the consequence of lack of knowledge. Schools' ability to operate is contingent on pupils knowing how to behave and knowing when they break the rules. Often the Traveller pupils might have missed the beginning of the first class in primary school, may not have been to nursery school and, therefore, have missed the everyday learning about how you act in class.
The structure of classroom norms may be implicit and difficult for the Traveller child to access. It may represent a difficult transition to insideness for children used to spending much of their time outside.
Research into teachers' views of discipline in schools generally suggests that the biggest issue is low level disruptiveness, talking, hindering other children and not cooperating (Munn et a1 1998). It was suggested that Gypsy Traveller children may get into trouble for the same kinds of reasons as other children, for example, not having a pencil or not doing their homework, but that for some Traveller children these may happen more often because of the circumstances of travelling and life on site. Difficulties related to late coming and to absence: Erratic patterns of attendance created difficulties. Problems of attendance were sometimes, but not always associated with actually travelling. Several teachers mentioned problems of attendance by housed Travellers.
Unpredictable patterns of attendance were recognised by all the Traveller support teachers as disruptive to class and subject teachers. Sometimes it may be that this exacerbates a problem a teacher was already having with a class.
Problems to do with missed curriculum and specific learning difficulties: Frustration was expressed by several teachers recognising that the difficulties presented by irregular attendance and their wish to see children making identifiable progress.
Several teachers suggested that sometimes difficulties in schools might be related to a high level of dyslexia amongst Gypsy Traveller boys. This is a problematic assertion as it is difficult to separate the notion of a specific learning difficulty from the overall issues associated with a historically non-literate culture, inconsistent school attendance and missed learning. Problems with friendships / peer group relationships: Varying patterns of attendance were also seen to lead to difficulties with friendship and peer group relationships.
Some teachers felt that it was difficult for Gypsy Traveller pupils to establish friendships outwith their own community. Sometimes children would spend break times checking on the well-being of siblings or of other Traveller children. Difficulties related to name-calling / bullying of Traveller pupils and fighting: Some teachers felt that there would always be name-calling.
Others thought that it was not an issue in their school although the evidence from the interviews with children, families and Traveller support teachers suggests that it is virtually universal and that many pupils do not feel supported by schools in facing it.
A number of teachers said that a small number of travelling pupils may be seen as not clean or as smelly. Some had tried to minimise the difficulties they felt this created for the children by offering spare clothes or access to showers but felt that the children were often resistant to this. Several emphasised that this was not only an issue for Gypsy Travellers but also for some children from the settled community. Equally one Traveller support teacher argued that some housed Travellers, because of their own high standards, are offended by their neighbours.
Several teachers like the one above commented on the sense of fairness expressed by Gypsy Traveller children and suggested that this sometimes got them into trouble at school.
Difficulties associated with transition to secondary school: Lack of knowledge of school and class room routines is also mentioned in relation to the transition from primary to secondary school when Gypsy Traveller pupils may arrive late and miss the introduction and induction phase. Attendance becomes much more sporadic and tails off completely for many Gypsy Traveller pupils (SCF 1996). Peer group relationships and bullying may also become more problematic.
Another issue identified at the secondary school level was refusal to participate in particular subjects, for example PE. Several teachers argued that some secondary subjects were seen as irrelevant for Gypsy Traveller pupils. As for other pupils it may also be the case that sometimes a particular subject may be liked because of the teacher who teaches it:
Discipline at secondary level becomes more complex as subject teachers vary in their approach:
Difficulties deriving from travelling life and being on a site: Traveller support staff felt that school colleagues had little understanding of the impact of life on a site, rather than in a house or of the culture and customs of travellers living in a trailer.
Difficulties associated with local neighbourhood poverty and delinquent subcultures: Several teachers mentioned that both housed and nomadic Gypsy Traveller families often live or stay temporarily in areas of multiple deprivation. Changing patterns of employment may make it difficult for Gypsy Travellers to obtain work and some were seen by schools to be living in circumstances of great economic disadvantage. A few teachers, especially where there were locally housed Gypsy Traveller families, talked about the problems for the school and for the families where Gypsy Traveller young people had become involved in the local delinquent subculture, for example, in one case with drug dealing. Some Gypsy Traveller parents also referred to this and, for some, their fears of their children getting into this kind of trouble were an argument against participation in secondary education. Gender issues: Most of the teachers' views differentiated between boys and girls. As has been found elsewhere, boys were more likely to be in trouble in school, to be seen as aggressive and more confrontational (Crozier & Anstiss 1995, Lloyd 1992). Girls were more likely to be seen as accommodating to the school norms.
When girls were difficult they were regarded as particularly problematic, especially when they were involved in violence. EXCLUSIONAlthough formal disciplinary exclusion did happen to Gypsy Traveller pupils, it seemed often more likely that conflict with teachers led to non-attendance. Where pupils were excluded there were issues around the formal procedures, for example, where the procedure was to write formally to parents inviting them to attend a meeting before their child would be readmitted it was often the case that this meeting never happened. Some Gypsy Traveller parents may not be able to read such communications. Often, however, the pupil may be removed from the roll by their parents after a problem before reaching the stage of exclusion. Some teachers suggested that Traveller pupils may have consciously or unconsciously behaved in a disruptive way leading to exclusion from school as a strategy to avoid attending school.
One support teacher saw the continual exclusion of a boy from school in the context of what was being done by neighbours to his family.
Another saw the exclusion having a negative impact on a pupil.
Although most of the excluded pupils mentioned were boys there was evidence of the exclusion of a few girls. Where there was exclusion it tended to be was for reasons similar to those found in other research on exclusion, ie violence between pupils or general disruptiveness (Cullen et al 1996, Lloyd 1999). LACK OF CONFIDENCE BY TEACHERSSeveral teachers and Traveller support teachers suggested that sometimes a lack of confidence on the part of colleagues may lead to difficulties in class.
Teachers and schools may be afraid of the impact on the class or the school of the presence of Gypsy Traveller pupils:
The school eventually agreed a compromise arrangement of part-time attendance:
Even when teachers are positive and supportive they may sometimes feel insecure about how to approach Traveller children. One Traveller support teacher described her first meeting with a group of Gypsy Traveller pupils and feeling that her college teacher training had not prepared her for this.
DISCUSSIONThe OFSTED report in England (1996) argues that sometimes the behaviour of Gypsy Travellers can be misjudged and this is supported by our evidence. From our interviews with teachers there was also sometimes a high level of understanding and tolerance shown by some teachers towards certain types of behaviour that may be considered as part of Gypsy Traveller culture. Although the behaviour of Gypsy Traveller pupils may be perceived as a problem, often this is understood as the 'fall out' from repeated and sustained absences. The reasons for many such absences may be from self exclusion or exclusion as the result of racist name-calling, or because of regular absences due to travelling. It was clear that some teachers did see some Gypsy Traveller children having behaviour difficulties but many also emphasised that other children from the Gypsy Traveller community showed good behaviour and furthermore that most of the school's behaviour problems were created by other kids from the settled community. The findings did, therefore, confirm our initial understanding that the school behaviour of some Gypsy Traveller pupils was seen as problematic by school staff. Some of the teachers who were interviewed made sense of it by contetxualising it within an understanding of the culture of Gypsy Travellers. Other teachers either did not have much knowledge of Gypsy Travellers' lives or, like the rest of the community, had partial, stereotyped or even prejudiced views. Equally a lack of knowledge, or indeed a rejection, by Gypsy Traveller pupils of the norms and values of schools was seen by staff as underpinning their actions. Staff in schools rarely reflected critically on the culture or organisation of their schools, tending as we argued earlier, to see problems in individual terms. Traveller support staff were more aware of the interaction between the child and their culture and the norms and values of schooling. There was a great deal of evidence from our interviews of individual teachers and schools taking action to facilitate the education of their Traveller pupils. There were several different strategies and responses discussed that accepted some of the practicalities of nomadism and worked with these, rather than against them with variable success. Other responses may have exacerbated the social and peer group problems that may be associated with nomadism, for example when Gypsy Traveller pupils were segregated in school from other pupils. In most schools there was a lack of awareness of the extent of name calling or a reluctance to see it as an issue and, therefore, little attention was paid to addressing it a school problem (Troyna & Hatcher 1992). From interviews with Gypsy Traveller parents and children it seems that much of what the school sees as indiscipline in the form of violence may be in response to name-calling - several pupils talked of the importance of fighting back when there was name calling in the playground. Some schools are failing to make the connection between discrimination in the wider community and what happens in schools. When some teachers perceive an inappropriate or excessive concern with their rights by Gypsy Traveller pupils they may not understand that their lives may be characterised by a struggle to achieve what are seen as basic rights and that a strong response to injustice reflects a life where injustice is experienced as routine. Kenny (1997) argues that 'Travellers do not claim to be completely different, they simply refuse to be measured by the norms of the sedentary' (p.25). Traveller support staff who were interviewed had made an effort to make sense of this to the teachers in the primary and secondary schools and attempted to mediate between the Gypsy Traveller families and the schools. For many teachers there appears to be some confusion/tension between their understandings of some behaviour as possibly culturally defined and their desire not to discriminate against their Traveller pupils. This often results in statements which deny difference and stress the particularity of the situation, which itself may lead to failure of the school to respond to the particular situation of some Traveller children, where an understanding of their cultural background and experiences could lead to a more empathetic response by the school. Sometimes an assertion that 'they are no different' or 'they are never treated differently from anyone else' may suggest a lack of recognition of the issue of difference. The recent Lawrence Inquiry has also re-emphasised the importance of the notion of institutional racism, which, as defined by the CRE, '...operates through the normal workings of the system rather than the conscious intent of the prejudiced individual' (Commission for Racial Equality 1985 p 2). The literature on disciplinary exclusion relates this to wider ideas of social exclusion and to the processes by which certain groups of pupils may be devalued, particularly in a climate of emphasis on formal academic achievement (Booth 1995). Other research has identified the complex ways in which race and gender stereotyping leads to the exclusion of other disadvantaged social groups, for example working class black boys in England (CRE 1997). Blyth and Milner and others have investigated the ways in which miscommunication can lead to confrontation in school (Blyth & Milner 1996). They argue that discipline is negotiated between teachers and pupils and that this negotiation is more complex for children from minority groups. Gypsy Traveller pupils thus have to negotiate different social contexts, the mainstream (settled) process in schools, in which they constitute a minority and are subject to racism, and then within the minority context they have to negotiate Traveller cultural agendas (Blyth & Milner 1997). We are not arguing that disruptiveness, aggressiveness or violence by Traveller pupils should be ignored in school, any more than they would be by other pupils. We are arguing that it is important to understand and make sense of these actions and, again as for any pupil, to look at the school institutional context and in particular at the climate and culture of the school. One aspect of this involves a consideration of whether the level of cooperation required from pupils involves an inappropriately high level of deference to adults. We recognise that the notion of effective authority is fundamental to order in a school, however several teachers identified a problem for Traveller children (and probably for other pupils) when some teachers were excessively concerned with visible deference. Several teachers made the point that the same teachers may have difficulties with Travellers as will have difficulties with other children. Some teachers find it incredibly difficult because they like to have a trench in front of them! Some folk like a line but some folk like a trench. (Learning support teacher, secondary) Although the number of Gypsy Traveller pupils in Scottish schools is not large, a discussion of teachers' views does raise some important issues about the ability of schools to respond to children who challenge the 'normality' of school attendance and behaviour. (Other children also do this, for example others with intermittent attendance such as children with chronic illness and truants). Gypsy Traveller pupils may challenge the fundamental and often unspoken bottom line of schooling which is that you come every day and do as you are told. There have always been groups of children who challenge these rules and schools vary considerably in their ability to include them. As Slee (1996) argues, the search for equity is itself a challenge to the structure and culture of schooling. By seeing these issues in individual terms, by not recognising difference, schools may continue merely to focus on behaviour, rather than explore the institutional response of the education system to a marginalised community. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTWe are grateful for the helpful advice of an anonymous referee. REFERENCESBooth (1995) Mapping inclusion and exclusion: concepts for all? ln Clark. C., Dyson, A. & Millward, A. (Eds) Towards inclusive schools? London: David Fulton. Booth, T. (1996) Stories of exclusion: natural and unnatural selection. In Blyth, E. & Milner. I. (Eds) Exclusion from School. London: Routledge. Blyth, E & Milner. J. (1996) Black boys excluded from school; race or masculinity issues? In Blyth, E. & Milner. J. (Eds) Exclusion from School. London: Routledge. Braid, D (1997) The construction of identity through narrative: folklore and the travelling people of Scotland. In Acton. T. & Mundy, G. (Eds) Romani Culture and Gypsy Identify. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education. (Fourth Edition) London: Routledge. Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (1985) Reactions to the Swann Report. London: CRE. Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (1997) Exclusion from School and Racial Equality. A Good Practice Guide. London: CRE. Crozier, J. & Anstiss, J. (1995) Out of the Spotlight: Girls' Experience of Disruption. in Lloyd. Smith. M. & Dwyfor Davies. J. (Eds) On the Margins. The Educational Experience of Problem Pupils. Stoke on Trent: Trentham. Cullen, M.A., Johnstone, M. Lloyd, G. & Munn. P. (1996) Exclusion from school and alternatives. Three reports to the Scottish Office. Edinburgh: Moray House. Gentleman, H. (1992) Counting Travellers in Scotland: The 1992 Picture. Edinburgh: Scottish Office. Foster, P., Gomm, R. & Hammersley. M. (1996) Constructing Educational Inequality: an Assessment of Research on School Processes. London: Falmer. Fraser, A. (1992) The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell. Gillborn, D. (1995) Racism and Anti racism in Real Schools. Buckingham: Open University Press. Gillborn, D. (1998) Racism and the politics of qualitative research: learning from controversy and critique. In Connolly, P. & Troyna, B. (eds) Researching Racism in Education. Politics. Theory and Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press. Jordan, E. (1996) Education for Travellers: towards a pedagogy for the protection of diversity. Paper presented at ATEE Annual Conference, Oslo. Kenny, M. (1997) The Routes of Resistance: Travellers and Second Level Schooling. Aldershot: Ashgate. Liegeois, J-P. (1987) School Provision for Gypsy and Traveller Children. Brussels: EC Commission. Lloyd, G (1992) Lassies of Leith Talk about Bother. In Booth, T. Swann, W. Masterton, M. and Potts. P. (Eds) Curricula for Diversity in Education. London: Routledge. Lloyd, G & Norris. C. (1998) From difference to deviance: the exclusion of gypsy-Traveller children from school in Scotland. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2, 4, 359-369. Lloyd, G. (1999 ) Excluded Girls. In Salisbury, J. & Riddell, S. Gender and Policy and Educational Change: Shifting Agendas in the UK and Europe. London: Routledge. Lloyd, G., Stead, J. and Jordan, E., with Norris, C. & Miller, M. (1999) Travellers at School: the Experience of Parents, Pupils and Teachers. Edinburgh: Moray House Lloyd, G., Stead, J. and Jordan, E. (forthcoming) Outsiders in School. Paper in process. Munn, P., Johnstone, M. & Sharp, S. (1998) Is lndiscipline Getting Worse? Scottish Teachers' Perceptions of lndiscipline in 1990 and 1996. Scottish Educational Review. 30, 2, 157-172. OFSTED (1996) The Education of Travelling Children. London:HMSO. Reid, W. (1997) Scottish gypsies / travellers and the folklorists. In Acton, T. & Mundy, G. (eds) Romani Culture and Gypsy Identity. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. SCF (1996) The Right to Roam: Travellers in Scotland. Dunfermline: Save the Children Fund. Slee, R. (1996) Disabilities, class and poverty: school structures and policing identities. In Christiansen, C. & Rizvi. F. Disability and the Dilemmas of Education and justice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Troyna, B. & Hatcher, R. (1992) Racism in Children's Lives: A Study of Mainly White Primary Schools. London: Routledge. Troyna, B. & Vincent, C. 1996 'The ideology of expertism'; the framing of special education and racial equality policies in the local state. In Christiansen, C. & Rizvi, F. Disability and the Dilemmas of Education and Justice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. APPENDIXSchedules used in interviews. These schedules were used flexibly as a topic guide. SCHOOL STAFFExplain what the research is about. Confidential, no one outside the research team will have access to the data, and no schools or individuals will be named in the report.
TRAVELLER CHILDREN / YOUNG PEOPLEIntroduction - the research we're doing is about how young Travellers feel about school and how they get on at school. None of what you say will go back to the school, it's entirely confidential.
Thank you for answering our questions. SCHEDULE FOR TRAVELLER SUPPORT GROUP / INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS
|
|
| STEP: Scottish Traveller Education Programme tel: 0131 651
6444; fax: 0131 651 6511
page updated 12 January 2004 |