'skivers', 'saddos' and 'swots': pupils'perceptions of the process of labelling those 'in trouble' at school.
Pauline Padfield
Department of Sociology
18 Buccleuch Place
Edinburgh
EH8 9LN
tel no: 0131 650 6698
email:
Paper presented at the Scottish Educational Research Association Annual Conference
(September 18- 20 1997: University of Dundee)
draft version: usual restrictions apply regarding quotation of work
'skivers', 'saddos' and 'swots' : pupils' perceptions of the process of labelling those 'in trouble' at school.
Introduction
The paper will discuss the ways in which informal reputations, assigned to pupils in the day to day talk of social relations of schooling, form links between social processes relevant to an understanding of 'bad' behaviour in school. This paper explores the construction of informal reputations, for example, 'skivers', 'saddos' and 'swots', together with the question of how they might contribute to the construction of official labels, principally 'social, emotional and behavioural difficulties', ('sebd'). Informal reputations appear to influence the outcome of pupil /teacher negotiations around 'disruptive incidents'. Actions by pupils that create problems in school are characteristically actions which do not comply with the normative expectations of pupils, norms essential to the smooth running of schools. The effect of an informal reputation, qualified as a 'bad' reputation, can have adverse consequences for pupils who are perceived by teachers as having 'behavioural difficulties'. Evidence to support this argument will be drawn from empirical data, offering pupils perceptions of their own and other pupils experiences in mainstream school. This paper represents an attempt to depart from a focus on 'bad' behaviour as a topic which ultimately locates the problem in 'problem pupils'. The traditional questions of educational sociology (see Haralambos & Holborn, 1995 pp 723-806) focus upon the continuing inequality of outcome for individual pupils organised around themes of class, gender and ethnicity. Similarly, the concerns of politics and policy makers (see, Barton, 1988; Riddell, 1992; Riddell & Brown (eds.) 1994; Ball, 1990) and educational psychological approaches to Ôbehavioural difficultiesÕ, (see, Armstrong & Galloway, 1994; Galloway, Armstrong & Tomlinson, 1994) tend to focus largely upon the 'individual'. These concerns are laid aside in an attempt to look at an ÔoldÕ problem in a fresh way, to consider the nature and characteristics of the social interactions within school as a key focus of analytic attention.
Background to the paper
This paper is part of a doctoral study into a social phenomenon officially labelled in Scotland as social, emotional and behavioural difficulties ('sebd'). In England and Wales it is called Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD).[1] The phenomenon known as 'sebd' has always raised the question, what can educational professionals do with children who, for whatever reason, are not able to participate in compulsory learning and teaching processes? Compulsory education of children sets up a formal relationship between the state, professionals and parents. Schools attempt to meet the demands of society for literate, numerate, and increasingly, technologically competent workers. Parents have a responsibility to help their children to prepare for their adult lives as able to find employment. On behalf of children, education provision is premised upon the idea of a 'normal child' who is able to benefit from learning and teaching, within a standardised form, drawing upon developmental ideas of what a child is expected to be able to achieve at a certain stage in his/her life. Pupils labelled as having 'behavioural difficulties' are likely to experience greater difficulties in achieving successful educational outcomes to allow them to enter a context of significant societal structural change.
Since the introduction of mass compulsory education in the United Kingdom[2], at the end of the last century, a problem of 'bad' behaviour emerged that has taxed professionals associated with the education and care of children and young people. What is the relationship between 'bad' behaviour, tolerated as an aspect of a child or young person learning how to 'get along' within the constraints of school rules, and 'bad' behaviour which becomes labelled as beyond what a school can be expected to cope with? Pupils who are considered to behave badly are increasingly finding themselves excluded from schooling with their peers. What is the relationship between 'sebd' and excluded pupils? Bearing in mind the compulsory nature of schooling, 'good' relations at school are an important source of support for pupils and teachers in achieving their mutual aims.
Observations of the gender imbalance among pupils labelled as having 'sebd' prompted the doctoral research. Ultimately the focus of the thesis will be upon the production of the 'sebd' label, i.e., the processes whereby pupils find themselves being labelled as having 'sebd', and why that label is more frequently assigned to boys than it is to girls. The ratio of boys to girls is officially recorded as, 4:1, but, in some situations the ratio differential is as high as 10:1 and even 40:1. (DfEE, 1994).[3] The situation in Scotland relating to exclusions is opaque, as accurate figures are not available.[4] In England and Wales official accounts draw attention to an ethnic dimension in these phenomena, as African -Caribbean boys are more likely to be excluded than their white peers. No account from this perspective exists in Scotland. Knowledge about this topic is largely developed from perspectives other than sociology, which have tended to locate problems within the person. What kind of a 'reality' does the concept of 'sebd' represent? The 'voice of pupils' themselves is largely absent from debates, although some authorities increasingly include pupils in conferences relating to this topic. The paper explores a concrete social 'reality' in preparation for an adequate sociological explanation of it.
Critique of the official label, Ôsocial, emotional and behavioural difficultiesÕ.
A blurred understanding about 'sebd' is constructed by the official literature itself. The official label 'sebd' developed out of official obligations to accommodate professional and administrative demands to respond to the educational needs of children who were 'in trouble' at school, a minority of pupils who were/ are not able to participate in and benefit from compulsory schooling. The label 'sebd' appears to be an administrative and an organisational device. In response to Education Act 1993, "Ministers agreed that the Department for Education would provide advice on a range of issues relating to pupil behaviour and discipline, emotional and behavioural difficulties, and the education of sick children." Designed to provide professionals with guidance on good practice for the education of children with such disparate needs as illness, and being in the care of local authorities, a pack of six linked Circulars, 'Pupils with Problems' (DfE, 1994) is said to "fulfil this commitment". Populations of ÔsebdÕ pupils may overlap with populations of ÔexcludedÕ pupils; they are not necessarily the same pupils. Discussions about 'sebd', are conflated with debates about 'excluded' pupils. The covering letter attached to the pack states, "They also explain new laws relating to exclusions and 'education otherwise that at school', about which head teachers and governors, and LEAs respectively need to know." The discussions focus upon discipline and control of pupils rather than explanation of problems that pupils may experience. The role of Records of Needs in relation to 'sebd' is an area that demands greater research attention.
A coherent formal definition of 'exclusion' shared in practice by schools across the UK does not exist. The topic of exclusions of children out of mainstream school has recently been highlighted in parliamentary discussion, in the media and press as well as the educational and professional journals. (Ofsted, 1995/6) In Scotland, access to reliable figures is an opaque quest, which illustrates the problem of an adequate description of the extent of exclusion. The numbers of pupils 'in trouble' with school authority have increased dramatically; a pattern which is evident among primary and secondary children. New questions need to be asked. Poor monitoring of the process of exclusion, points to a contradiction between the issue of 'knowing' about children and avoiding the effect of having a record, which itself may well be part of the process of labelling a child as having 'behavioural difficulties'. In the main schools 'know' what is happening to children who are excluded, but, poor record keeping does raise the question of the adequacy of the official record of the process and incidence of exclusion of mainstream pupils from their school.
Research in progress in Scotland, (Cullen, Johnstone, Lloyd and Munn, 1996) designed to clarify the meanings behind such terms as temporary and permanent, and long term and short term exclusion, in order produce meaningful policy statements based upon the experience of exclusion.
At this point in the process of the thesis it is clear a conceptual distinction must be drawn between 'sebd' and 'exclusion' in order to develop a clearer understanding of the phenomenon 'sebd'. To begin that process the term 'behavioural difficulties' allows the discussion to proceed.
Pupils with 'behavioural difficulties' are increasingly likely to be excluded from mainstream schools. Some pupils are excluded from one mainstream school for a 'one off' incident and go to another mainstream school. Although not officially labelled as having 'behavioural difficulties', the pupil is strongly associated with that label through their reputation of 'excluded' pupil. It may well be the case that a pupil has been excluded after many incidents of perceived intransigence on the part of the pupil, which cannot be tolerated any longer by the teacher or teachers concerned. Pupils may be 'excluded' from mainstream schools to special 'sebd' educational provision (special schools) in an orderly and controlled fashion. Pupils thus experience being 'in trouble' at school for a variety of reasons and in a variety of different circumstances.
Against this background, subsumed under a catchall official label of 'sebd' or EBD, pupils with 'behavioural difficulties' , largely educated out of mainstream schools, (see Topping, 1983) experience a 'hotchpotch' of practices which serve to construct a muddled understanding of their problems (see Tutt, 1984). While this paper is not directly about the above issues, an understanding of the debates around 'sebd' and the conceptual distinctions I employ in relation to 'sebd' and formal exclusions of children from mainstream schools, are necessary background information to the main focus of the paper. In the light of these observations this paper defines 'sebd', which may or may not have cognitive, psychological, emotional or socio-economic components, as a social phenomenon that emerges from failed social relationships experienced largely within school.
The study.
Empirical work for the study was carried out in two mainstream Scottish Secondary Schools with S3 pupils, some of whom are 'in trouble', that is at a point where pupils are not officially labelled as having 'sebd'. Initial exploratory work, carried out to explore sensitive and methodologically sound ways to select pupils to participate in the study, showed that the label 'sebd' was not used in the two schools. Teachers in the main referred to pupils as having 'behavioural difficulties'. Official responses were largely to those pupils who manifested their difficulties in "disruptive and challenging ways", although teachers were concerned and aware of those pupils "who suffered in silence". In practice, an official label 'sebd' applies to pupils as a consequence of being assigned to special educational provision, which may be in special classes in a mainstream school, but , who are more likely to be in alternative forms of educational provision.
In recognition of the arbitrary and ambiguous nature of knowledge about 'sebd', pupils were chosen to participate in the study on the basis of three broad descriptive categories. The categories were defined to reflect the degree to which the pupil was associated with 'behavioural difficulties'. Pupils were drawn from across a range of pupils, some of whom were thought to be 'in trouble' to a degree that their behaviour was the subject of official concern. Equal numbers of boys and girls were invited to participate, in each of the following categories ; not being 'in trouble'[5;] pupils who are in some trouble and therefore obliged to have one of three kinds of 'sheet' to be signed by all teachers and their parents or carers, on a daily basis[6] ; and pupils who are 'in trouble' to the degree that the school has placed the pupils name on the School Liaison Group (SLG) agenda[7] . The paper is focused upon pupils' perceptions of the labelling process of those 'in trouble' in mainstream schools.
Debates about Ôbehavioural difficultiesÕ in mainstream schools focus mainly on how to manage pupils, thus the negotiation of the power relationship between pupils and teachers in the mainstream classroom is of crucial significance in the process of labelling. Analysis of data to date, proceeds from an interactionist perspective, from pupils perceptions of school life '... as a series of encounters or interactions, which have a special and distinctive character. We will recognise the mutual susceptibility of interacting individuals" (Barnes, 1995: 71). The concepts of 'control', 'knowledge' and 'negotiation' are central in the power relationship between pupil and teacher. Does a teacher know the pupil by their informal reputation? To what extent does the teacher know the reasons behind the actions of the pupil? Is it possible for the pupil and teacher to be able to negotiate a solution? Or does the public nature of the negotiation of the problem and the threat of 'loss of face' militate against explanation for action and simply a response to the action itself? Does the pressure of time itself prevent any meaningful discussion between pupil and teacher? Drawing upon empirical data, in an attempt to illuminate an aspect of Kilbrandon's[8] remit to help 'children in trouble' I ask the questions; how do children in school come to be labelled as having 'sebd'? ( in my case studies the label 'sebd' was not used explicitly, however, by oblique references to particular individuals known as having 'behavioural difficulties' the meanings associated with the label were implied.) To what extent and in what ways is gender constitutive of that experience?
Context of school as a social site.
The formal purposes of schooling shape the ways in which daily school life is experienced by pupils, teachers and ancillary staff and indeed, visitors who enter the physical space of a school. Pupils' social interactions are shaped by the demands of space in which they take place, where the smooth running of school life depends upon an acceptance by participants of the rules and norms which make social interactions possible. In school, the concept of space becomes associated with the concept of time, for example, the general timetable is signalled by the ringing of the bell signifying the end of each period. Without the co-operation of pupils and teachers with rules governing the use of corridors and stair cases chaos and disorder would erupt. The school population moves in response to that bell, to the next space allocated to them on the basis of their personal timetable. Learning and teaching could not proceed if pupils and teachers did not observe the school's organisation of who uses what space, and how to get there. Allocation of pupils to one class rather than another is largely on the basis of teachers' perceptions of a pupil's academic potential, although increasingly government policy on the testing of children plays a role in these decisions. Pupils have little say in these matters, although their co-operation is crucial to their success. Current government policy claims to provide parents with choice. (see Munn, 1991) A legally enforceable relationship thus exists between particular activities associated with the school space and the state's compulsion upon young people. Pupil's 'time' in that 'space', is governed by an expectation of 'good' behaviour, that is an acceptance of the rules and obligations of schools, as a condition of learning . The state endorses the authority of the school to respond to actions defined as 'bad' behaviour, for example, if pupils do not attend school (to 'skive'[9] ) or behave as expected when in school they may face the possibility of exclusion from mainstream school. A pupil's parents or carers are likely to have to face the possibility of legal consequences for failing to ensure that their child to attended school.
Social processes of schooling and the significance of social inclusion/ exclusion for a pupilÕs experience of school.
This section of the paper will describe five social processes observed in the empirical research. It will also illustrate the relationships between those processes, and offer evidence from pupils themselves to support the salience of the choosing an interactionist perspective, rather than focusing upon individual acts of 'bad' behaviour. The social processes can be described briefly as; formation of informal reputations; learning and teaching; social identity formation; interaction with the guidance system; and interaction with the discipline system. The idea of social inclusion /exclusion in pupil relationships are explored as social effects of having a particular kind of informal reputation. What if any is the relationship between social and formal exclusion in the experience of schooling?
informal reputations and gender
Current rises in the number of pupils recorded as excluded from school, highlights a need for explanation. Gender profiles of pupils who are labelled as having 'sebd' and / or who are excluded from school raise questions about the role of gender in the process of exclusion. To what extent are notions of 'how to be a girl' or 'how to be a boy', constitutive of expectations of appropriate gender behaviour? Are we really all equal now? How do these ideas shape the experience of schooling? In what ways are beliefs and attitudes about gender constitutive of a pupils experience of being 'in trouble'?