CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE CULTURAL KIND: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CULTURE IN UNDERSTANDING PROCESSES OF INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION IN SCHOOLS
Kristine Black-Hawkins
School of Education
The Open University
Paper presented at the British Education Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2-5th 1999
Close Encounters of the Cultural Kind: the Significance of Culture in Understanding Processes of Inclusion and Exclusion in Schools
INTRODUCTION
In this paper I reflect on the significance of culture in the understanding of processes of inclusion and exclusion in schools. I begin by discussing the concepts of inclusion and exclusion, as well as that of school culture, and consider what might be meant by a synthesis of these terms.
To support my discussion I draw on some research I recently completed in a UK secondary school. In this I deliberately set out to explore the cultures of Bowden School by working there as a voluntary learning support assistant (LSA) for a period of six months. I wanted to find out who participates in, and who is excluded from, different aspects of school life, and why this is so.
Four themes emerged from my work although a brief description of each below will indicate their interconnectedness:
(1) Interacting with the outside world – Since no school exists in a cultural vacuum, I explored how Bowden School interacts with the outside world. I considered the lives which students and staff bring into the school with them: family, friends and neighbourhood. I reflected on notions of identity, belonging and alienation. I also looked at the influence of changing local, national and global politics on the school’s policies and practices and how cultural collisions may create barriers to inclusion.
(2) Playing the game: knowing the rules - “Any complex game is unintelligible until we understand the rules. People appear to run around, and to start and stop, in arbitrary and confused ways.” (Thompson, 1978, p.345) This analogy for a society seems an effective metaphor for trying to understand a school’s culture. I attempted to identify the rules operating in Bowden School, both transparent and opaque, and the different ‘games’ being ‘played’ simultaneously. I considered how these may support the fuller inclusion of some members of the school whilst exacerbating the exclusion of others.
(3) Diversity or discrimination: supporting learners – The practices operating in a school to support learners are demonstrations of how different students are valued. I examined, for example, grouping criteria within Bowden School, the allocation of resources, attitudes to student diversity, teaching and learning styles, and how such practices illustrated notions of students’ worthiness and worthlessness. Practices could be simultaneously both inclusionary and exclusionary. Withdrawing students with low reading attainment from mainstream classes for ‘extra reading’ may provide them with greater opportunities to access the curriculum whilst excluding them from their peer group’s lessons.
(4) Managing power – I considered how power was managed within the culture of the school both to increase and reduce the participation of its members. This was evident at different levels, within and beyond the school, and in terms of both overt and covert management and decision making structures. I looked at the management of power in the classroom and the staffroom – amongst students, amongst staff and between students and staff.
For the purposes of this paper I have chosen to focus on the fourth theme, managing power. It would be possible for me to provide literally hundreds of examples of inclusionary and exclusionary processes that I observed during my time at Bowden School, however, I have applied two other criteria in deciding what to include here. First, I have chosen data that portray effectively a sense of the school as I experienced it. Second, I have chosen examples that highlight the ambiguities and contradictions inherent in understanding school cultures of inclusion and exclusion. In this way I hope to illustrate the dilemmas facing people in schools every day when decisions are taken and compromises made. I specifically reflect on:
(i)the management of power: a headteacher’s perspective, and
(ii)power and control in the classroom – science and music.
In a subsequent paper I also intend to consider this theme in relationship to the management of the learning support department.
Finally, I offer some concluding remarks about my experiences at the school and their relationship to the significance of culture in the understanding processes of inclusion and exclusion in schools.
INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION
Inclusion and exclusion are, semantically, linked as antonyms, but, in my experience, teachers in schools do not frequently make the connections. This is a typical response from a mainstream teacher when told that my research interest is ‘inclusion’. “It’s all very well closing down special schools but where are the resources to help us?” On the other hand, if I explain I am studying ‘exclusion’ I am usually given examples of students who have been (or should be) kept out of school because of their behaviour.
This parallels much of the discussion amongst educational academics. For some, inclusion is more or less synonymous with the integration into mainstream schools of a specific group of students who may be referred to as ‘having special educational needs’ as is also reflected in government publications (e.g. DfEE, 1997). Others, however, argue for a wider whole-school interpretation (Sebba, 1997; Thomas et al, 1998; Corbett, 1999). Yet, even in these works a focus on certain groups of students is still evident.
For academics, the term exclusion has also been generally confined to a technical usage referring to the temporary or permanent removal of a student from school (Hayden, 1997; Parsons, 1996; Blyth and Milner, 1997; Stirling, 1992). This has been a subject of particular concern throughout the 1990s, receiving widespread coverage not only in academic texts but also in the media. More recently, however, exclusion has also been applied to wider notions of being excluded from society. Poverty, housing, unemployment, as well as education have come under scrutiny, for example by the government’s Social Exclusion Unit.
Understanding the inextricable connections between inclusion and exclusion, and their relationship to all members of a school’s community, is essential. Booth, for example, describes inclusion and exclusion as “two linked processes” which affect all students. He goes on to define them as … “the process of increasing the participation of students in the cultures and communities of mainstream community schools … [and] the process of reducing the exclusion of students from mainstream cultures and curricula” (Booth, 1996, p.89). As processes, inclusion and exclusion necessarily imply that the state of being an ‘inclusive school’ is an ideal and therefore unattainable.
There are many complex and shifting pressures on and in schools. Responding to these pressures – making decisions - is a constant part of school life: for governing bodies, management teams, classroom teachers, students, parents. Inclusionary and exclusionary processes affect, and are determined by, which actions and non-actions are taken. For example: who participates, who is valued, who is welcomed, and who has power. They are about identity and belonging and therefore they are embedded in a school’s culture.
SCHOOL CULTURES
Schools are complex social places and their cultures are not easily perceived even by those working in them. No culture is static or monolithic, but rather fluid and experienced differently by different people depending on their perspectives and understandings. Schools necessarily exist in a world beyond their playgrounds and gates. Students and staff do not attend school in a vacuum. They bring with them the rest of their lives: their families and homes, friendships, and previous educational experiences. The local community and local and national politics also help to shape the cultures of a school. How people identify themselves, and how they are identified by others, contributes to the culture and is determined by the culture.
Thus it is necessary to keep in mind the multi-layered and shifting complexities of actual schools. Booth and Ainscow (1998) describe how educational research may represent schools in a way in which there is “a distortion of reality, an avoidance of reports of the messiness and inconsistencies of real schools and real lives, and the swirling contradictions of particular cultures and minds” (p.2).
Exploring the notion of a school’s culture has exercised the thoughts of sociologists and educationalists for many years, from Waller (1932) who highlighted the “separate culture of the school”, to a book published recently, simply called School Culture (Prosser (ed.) 1999). Despite this attention the concept itself has proved an elusive one. Indeed, Nias (1989) argues that the term is “often applied to schools with a wilful lack of precision” (p.143). I would extend this reprimand further to all those other, seemingly interchangeable, alternative terms. Thus the words ‘climate’, ‘atmosphere’, ‘environment’, ‘ethos’ and ‘setting may all be prefixed by the word ‘school’.
There are some discernible patterns in the literature, suggesting particular theoretical approaches and supporting methodologies. For example, the impact of studies such as Rutter, et al (1979) led to attempts to assess what he and his colleagues referred to as ‘school ethos’ as a means by which they might establish why apparently similar schools were more or less ‘successful’ than others. During the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the UK and north America, there have been numerous attempts to categorise ‘variables’ relating to a school’s culture, climate or ethos, as part of empirical studies of schools as organisations (e.g. Little, 1981; Coleman, 1996; Fraser, et al, 1987). Similarly, within the school improvement field, qualitative studies consider ‘culture’ as a factor for change (e.g. Louis, K. S. and Smith, B. A. 1991; Dalin1993; Stoll, 1999).
Others have explored different cultures within schools, or subcultures, particularly within ethnographic studies: for example, based on ethnicity or ‘race’ (e.g. Musgrove, 1982; Burtonwood, 1986; Gillborn, 1992; Siraj-Blatchford, I., 1993); “teacher cultures” (e.g. Hargreaves, A., 1992; Nias and Southworth and Yeomans, 1989); “student cultures” (e.g. Deal, 1985; Stanley, 1989; Woods, 1990; Riddell, 1992).
In much of the research referred to above, the writers, of course, acknowledge the difficulties they have encountered when attempting to create some order out of what they might mean by school cultures. There appears to be a general frustration about how to get ‘under the skin’ of a school. Indeed Prosser argues that definitions are not really helpful as they are inevitably too general. He suggests that research on school cultures would be better served by “placing greater emphasis on clarifying its meaning within the context of use” (1999, p.9). That is one of the purposes of this paper.
EXPLORING CULTURES OF INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION AT BOWDEN SCHOOL
Background to the School
The study took place at Bowden Comprehensive School: an 11 to 18 mixed comprehensive with approximately 1300 students. Built 60 years ago as a secondary modern school, it is set in the middle of a mixed housing estate two and a half miles from the city centre. There are within the student population substantial socio-economic variations. According to its last Ofsted report, over a quarter of students come from one particular electoral ward which is amongst the 10% of the most deprived wards nationally. About 8% of its intake are from ethnic minority groups, with approximately 80 students coming from homes where English is the second language. The LEA fund places for 32 students, who are designated as having ‘moderate learning difficulties’, through an ‘enhanced resources’ scheme.
Background to the Study and some Methodological Considerations
It takes time to get to know a school. To understand the cultural processes in Bowden School I decided I should become a part of it – an insider. I wanted to encounter being included and excluded from different aspects of school life as any other member might be. I therefore offered to work as a part-time voluntary LSA. In this role I would have ready access to many more lessons than a teacher, since I would be involved in a wider variety of subjects. Since the school already had nine LSAs when I started there I considered that an additional one would not make any general impact on the school.
Taking on the role of an LSA not only gave me the opportunity to observe many lessons but also many other aspects of school life. I could attend meetings, sit in the staffroom, have lunch in the canteen, participate in staff development activities. Staff and students chatted informally to me and to each other in my presence. People often let down their guard: they related humorous anecdotes; they complained; they lost their tempers; they looked bored. Gaps and inconsistencies in my data were more easily identifiable. I had opportunities to check and recheck my emerging understanding of the school.
So by joining the school I managed to reduce the metaphorical distance between myself as researcher and members of the school. However, sometimes that space has its uses. For example, staff quickly seemed to forget why I was there. As professional friendships developed, some would chat to me in a very frank manner about their work, other staff and students. Such confidences were often rich sources of data. Yet I was not always comfortable about their research status, as they implied a level of trust which I was loathed to breach. It did not even seem appropriate at times to request permission to use such data. The act of asking would, I think, have been damaging.
Not only did the school get used to me, I got very used to it. The longer I worked at the school, the more I felt a part of it. That is, I joined some of its cultures and experienced being excluded from others. Whilst this process offered fascinating insights into my research, methodologically it provided me with some complex dilemmas. It has not always been easy to establish whether my developing perceptions are based on greater knowledge or my gradual aculturalisation. Again, distance has its uses.
Yet, despite these difficulties I agree with the following:
“I have worked with being distant and it has been easier to keep the process of research pure… The quality of data is different when research keeps distant; it is easier to handle, less deeply subjective, easier to manipulate and to categorise, and on the whole less revealing, less real, thin. Given the choice between data collected from strangers during intensive, but brief periods of fieldwork; and that which comes from close contact over long periods of time in cross-cutting relationships, I find I prefer to work with the latter, despite the difficulties, technical and professional, because they seem to offer promise of insight and understanding.” (Walker, 1991, p.99)
The Study
My time with the school spread over four terms although the main part took place over a six months’ period. I was there during the summer and autumn terms of 1998 so that I was able to work with the same students being taught by different subject teachers as they changed year groups. I was also able to observe and participate in the ending and beginning of a school year.
I was given a timetable for my two days. This comprised of supporting teachers and students in mainstream classes as well as taking small groups of students for what the school called workshops in reading and mathematics. However, like all members of the department, I was expected to be flexible and cover for absent colleagues. In this way I was able to work with an even greater number of students, staff and curriculum areas. By the time I had finished my fieldwork at Bowden School I had, at some point, supported 21 different members of staff across all curriculum areas (apart from PE – thank heavens…) and including students from all year groups, except the sixth form.
I took on the same duties as other LSAs. For me these included helping with the homework club, preparing materials for lessons, administering reading tests, providing information on students to staff and contributing to the record keeping system. I also attended whole school ‘briefing’ meetings once or twice a week and regular house and department meetings as well as staff development days. At the end of the summer term I assisted with the year 6 students’ primary days and in the autumn term I attended some of the induction course for new members of staff. The learning support department arranged regular social events to which I was always invited. I worked hard to ‘fit in’ and members of the department were generous in their efforts to assimilate me.
I kept a daily journal of what I did and saw. This included not only lessons in which I was supporting the subject teacher, but also meetings I attended, as well as more informal situations such as lunch times. I also gathered up various documents which I thought might be of use to the study. For example: the Staff Handbook, daily Bulletin Sheets, agendas and minutes of meetings, records of individual students I supported (primary reports, tests scores, timetables, Individual Education Plans, statements of special educational needs, etc), worksheets and other materials from lessons, etc. I also interviewed a number of staff, students and parents so as to gain a range of perspectives on issues and themes around processes of inclusion and exclusion.
Reflections on my experiences at Bowden School: Managing Power
THE MANAGEMENT OF POWER: A HEADTEACHER’S PERSPECTIVE
On the culture of Bowden School: individuals and relationships
“The key thing that I’m aiming for, idealistically, is a school where each individual – it doesn’t matter who they are – should be getting pastoral support, academic support, that development of the whole… And they’re not going to get it every minute, every day, but nevertheless, I think they should have their time.”