Confronting Marginalisation in Education

A Framework for Promoting Inclusion

Kyriaki Messiou

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780415603508
• eBook ISBN: 9781136326042
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

One of the key challenges facing schools today is that of reducing marginalisation amongst pupils in educational contexts. This timely book provides guidance and illustrative examples of the ways in which primary and secondary schools can include all of their students in the academic and social experiences they provide. Developed around a framework

Chapter 1

Conceptualising marginalisation

This chapter explores the concept of marginalisation in education, as well as how the concept relates to inclusion. In order to do this it considers the ways in which marginalisation has been defined in the literature, as well as looking at the issue of labelling (particularly the use of the term ‘special educational needs’) and the links with marginalisation. It is argued that labelling does not necessarily lead to pupils being overlooked. At the same time, it explains how, by focusing only on those students who are defined as being in some sense vulnerable, we might be overlooking others who are experiencing marginalisation.

Drawing on my own research, marginalisation is defined as taking one of four forms: (i) when a child is experiencing some kind of marginalisation that is recognised almost by everybody, including himself/herself; (ii) when a child is feeling that he/she is experiencing marginalisation, whereas most of the others do not recognise this; (iii) when a child is found in what appears to be marginalised situations but does not feel it, or does not view it as marginalisation; and, finally, (iv) when a child is experiencing marginalisation but does not admit it. This means that marginalisation must be regarded as a complex, multi-faceted notion that has to be explored in relation to specific contexts.

An exploration of the importance of engaging with students’ voices follows, since the potential of engaging with their views is central to the rationale on which the framework recommended in this book was developed. In addition to this, the rationale on which the framework is based is described. This places a particular focus on the links between marginalisation and the notion of inclusion as a concept that relates to different ways in which schools can respond to the diversity of their learners. Towards the end of the chapter the suggested framework for understanding and confronting marginalisation is introduced, before subsequent chapters go into details of each individual step.

Marginalisation in education

Marginalisation is an abstract and complex concept. It has been used in various disciplines, such as psychology, sociology and most recently education. UNESCO’s Education for All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2010), entitled Reaching the Marginalized, argues that in all countries, regardless whether rich or poor, there are individuals and groups that experience extreme and persistent disadvantage in education, which as a consequence sets them apart from society. It is also argued in the report that, although defining marginalisation is difficult, most people would accept that it encompasses quantitative deprivation, as measured by years in school or the level of education attained. In addition, it is noted that there is a qualitative dimension of marginalisation: those who are defined as marginalised typically demonstrate lower levels of educational achievement.

Using UNESCO’s dimensions of quantitative versus qualitative, it can be argued that lack of access to education is the ultimate form of marginalisation in education, or to be more accurate marginalisation from education. In other words, the 67 million children out of school globally in 2009 (UIS, 2011) are without doubt the ones who are most marginalised. However, that is not the focus of this book. Rather, the focus here is on more subtle forms of marginalisation that exist once children and young people are in schools. In other words, the concern here is with marginalisation within school contexts.

The concept of marginalisation can be found in the theory of the ‘marginal man’, which initially emphasised the specific personality traits that individuals develop when placed in a marginal situation between two not entirely compatible social positions (Dickie-Clark, 1966). However, as the theory evolved, more emphasis was placed upon the sociological perspective of the marginal situation and how it specifically affected the structure and functioning of groups. Dickie-Clark points out that ‘the very notion of “marginal” suggests limits or boundaries of some kinds as well as the juxtaposition of entities’ (p. 28). Following this definition, one might argue that a common practice used in schools in many countries – that of separating individuals from their peers in order to provide additional support – can be described as a kind of setting limits or boundaries. Since it certainly involves one kind of boundary, it can be described as a form of marginalisation. However, what is absent from this argument is the experience and perceptions of the people involved in the process. For example, even though such situations might be described as ‘marginalising’ by others, they might not be experienced as such by those involved, as research suggests (e.g. Belanger, 2000; Messiou, 2003). Therefore, I argue that what counts as marginalisation involves subjective interpretations. Consequently, it is essential to engage with the views of those who are found in such situations.

Similar thinking relates to the idea of labelling. ‘Labelling theory’ is a term associated with Howard Becker (1973), whose work focused on deviance. He suggests that all social groups make rules and attempt, at some time and under some circumstances, to enforce them. According to Becker, those who break these rules are regarded as ‘outsiders’. However, sometimes those defined by others as outsiders might themselves perceive others as outsiders, since they do not agree with the rules that are imposed upon them. For Becker, ‘The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label’ (p. 9). If we extend this thinking to marginalisation, we could argue that marginal behaviour is what people have labelled as such. In other words, those who are perceived by others as deviating from what is perceived to be the ‘norm’ could be given the label of marginal. This could also have an impact on the way that others are behaving towards those whom they have labelled as marginal.

Becker’s ideas are compatible, to some extent, with the premises of symbolic interactionism. Adopting this perspective, Blumer (1969) argues that human beings act towards things on the basis of the meanings they have for them, and those meanings arise out of the social interaction between people and are then modified through an interpretative process that is used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters. Therefore, emphasis is placed on the meanings held by people concerning others, or even labels that are assigned to people, and the way in which meanings are created. Following Becker’s ideas, and using notions of symbolic interactionism, I take the position that marginalisation is created in social groups, and through the interactions and labelling that occur within them (Messiou, 2006a).

In a way that relates to these ideas, the UNDP (1996) defines marginalisation as ‘the state of being considered unimportant, undesirable, unworthy, insignificant and different resulting in inequity, unfairness, deprivation and enforced lack of access to mainstream power’ (p. 1). This definition suggests that if individuals are considered, either by others or by themselves, as unimportant or undesirable, they are experiencing marginalisation, with all the potential consequences I have described.

Taking Dickie-Clark’s definition of marginalisation – with its particular focus on limits or boundaries of various kinds, and the juxtaposition of individuals – it becomes evident that processes of marginalisation are closely linked to labelling. So, by defining a child as ‘having special educational needs’, for example, we are juxtaposing individuals, and, therefore, it is possible that some individuals come to be marginalised. Similarly, this same argument could extend to other groups of learners, such as children from different ethnic backgrounds, travellers and those in public care. In saying that, it must be noted that simply belonging to one of these groups does not necessarily mean that individuals will experience marginalisation. What it does mean, though, is that, most of the time, belonging in those groups attaches labels to those individuals. Usually, these labels do not hold a positive connotation in education contexts; rather, students who are assigned labels are often seen as learners who present potential challenges for school contexts.

The issue of labelling

My own engagement with children as a practitioner for many years – as well as my engagement in the field as a researcher – has led me to doubt the necessity of thinking about students as belonging to distinct groups and, even more dangerously, labelling them. As a practitioner, I am aware of the fact that this is sometimes seen to be helpful, since, for example, bilingual students might well face similar difficulties in schools. Responses that have helped a particular student might, therefore, prove to be helpful with another child belonging to the same group. Some would argue that this applies particularly to those learners defined as having special educational needs. However, one has to keep in mind that, although a child might fall into one group, at the same time he/she falls into other categories, such as boys and girls or nine-year-olds, for example, and, most importantly, they are each individuals with different personalities, interests, strengths and weaknesses that one has to take into account when working with them. Therefore, rather than making assumptions based on which group a learner belongs to, I feel that a much more useful approach is that of engaging with each student as an individual.

In addition, and most importantly, focusing only on labels can be very limiting in that it deflects attention from wider contextual factors that bear on a student’s learning and participation (Ainscow, 2000). This emphasis on contextual factors relates to the notion of inclusion and how this is understood in this book, a theme that I return to in a later section of this chapter.

Such arguments lead one to look critically at the stacks of books that are available that provide recipes to follow – especially regarding students defined as having a special educational need or a disability – suggesting that what works with one particular child works with others who fall into that group. It has to be acknowledged that some of the techniques suggested in these books can be quite useful; that is why they are so popular, especially among busy practitioners. The point that I am making is that such techniques in themselves can never be enough. Rather, the use of specific techniques has to be embedded within an approach that looks at individuals and tries to engage them to the greatest possible extent in the learning processes, as well as looking at factors within a given context that might create barriers to their participation and learning; whereas the suggestions made in some texts are, I feel, misleading in the way that they present complex challenges – such as meeting the needs of individual students – as straightforward issues that can be addressed by simply following a series of steps. At the same time, there is the danger of practitioners believing that they have done enough, since they have exhausted the formulaic approaches that are suggested. Therefore, sometimes, when the suggestions are not working they feel that there is nothing more that they can do, since they have already tried everything suggested in the books. This, I feel, prevents them from being creative and innovative in addressing challenges they are facing with particular learners.

A further concern I have is that a reliance on labels can lead to assumptions that students who fall in a particular group are necessarily experiencing marginalisation. This, in turn, may lead to specific ways of treating individuals. This reminds me of a recent example at my university. In my role as disability tutor, a student who had been diagnosed as having dyspraxia told me how her lecturer kept asking her in the class: ‘Have you understood this? Let me explain it one more time.’ Though the student was not complaining and appreciated her lecturer’s efforts to help her, she said that she had no difficulties in understanding what they were taught and that there was, therefore, no need for her to be treated differently from any other student. It seemed to me that the fact that the student was assigned the particular label led her lecturer to assume that she could not understand and therefore needed further explanations.

Similarly, when I am working with practitioners in schools and I ask them to think about students who might be on the margins, often they immediately mention those who have been assigned some sort of a label. Alternatively, they may mention children who belong to particular groups that are assumed to be on the margins, such as those with disabilities, travellers, ethnic minorities, or people from low socio-economic backgrounds. I am not in any way blaming practitioners for thinking in such ways. In fact, I once had a similar response when I was talking to an academic about my own work. Her immediate response when I said that my work is about marginalisation was: ‘Marginalisation of whom? For which group of learners?’ It seems to me that this is the product of the dominant deficit thinking about individuals who belong in particular groups. For practitioners in England, this is the result of contradictory national policies. For example, I always thought it was very interesting that on the website of the Department for Children, Schools and Families – now renamed the Department for Education under the new government – there was an emphasis on inclusion for all, whilst, at the same time, material related to distinct categories of special educational needs, ethnic minorities, and gifted and talented also appeared as separate sections. This seems to suggest that, whereas inclusion is for all, at the same time we do know that there are some students who belong in particular groups that will experience marginalisation of some kind. Although learners falling in one of these categories might, in fact, experience marginalisation of some kind, in my view taking this for granted is dangerous. Most importantly, as I have explained, it can lead to overlooking others who experience marginalisation. Therefore, encouraging teachers to think in broader terms about all of this is necessary. From my experience in working with practitioners, when I encourage them to think further about initial responses of the sort that I have mentioned, they always come up with students whom they had never considered before. Often these are ones who get lost in the busy context of a school, where, understandably, attention is focused on those students perceived as being most vulnerable.

My argument here does not focus in any further detail on the use of labels in education, and the advantages and disadvantages involved. This has been discussed extensively in the literature (e.g. Lauchlan and Boyle, 2007) and could be a chapter in itself. The most overarching theme in favour of labelling is that of provision of additional resources in schools, which is certainly the case in the English context, whereas those who argue against labels discuss how they lead to stigmatising of individuals. These arguments, of course, might differ in other countries, as labelling does not automatically mean access to additional resources but might only have the damaging effects of stigmatising people.

However, this is not the focus of my own argument here. Rather, the central argument I am making is that labelling should not be seen as synonymous with marginalisation. As I have argued, there is a danger that, if seen as such, this might lead us to overlook the experiences of others who do not fall into any of the traditional groups. In a way that reinforces my argument, Veck (2009) suggests that ‘labelling learners, in terms of what has been deemed deficient within them, can form a barrier to listening’ (p. 142). So, for example, those defined as having a special educational need may not be given a chance to express their views on the assumption that they are not able to articulate them. In this way, perceptions of deficiency create a barrier to listening.

Although agreeing with this view, I argue that the absence of an assigned label can also lead to children not being listened to. As examples from research have shown (e.g. Derrington and Kendall, 2003; Lawson, 2010), a voice has been given to those individuals or groups of learners that fall into particular categories (for example, those defined as having special educational needs or travellers and gypsies). As a result, voices that were previously absent are now far more likely to be heard. On the other hand, accounts of the views of those who do not belong to particular groups – and who might also experience some kind of marginalisation in school contexts – are almost completely absent from the literature.

Understanding marginalisation

In trying to understand marginalisation, there is a need to move beyond a limited focus on particular groups assumed to be vulnerable, and this is certainly what I have attempted to do through my earlier work. This move presumes that marginalisation can have various meanings among different people and in different contexts. In particular, through my earlier doctoral work, I carried out an ethnographic study that set out to explore how marginalisation is experienced by children themselves in a primary school (Messiou, 2003). This led me to argue that marginalisation can be conceptualised in one of the four following ways:

1 when a child experiences some kind of marginalisation that is recognised by almost everybody including himself/herself

2 when a child feels that he/she is experiencing marginalisation whereas most of the others do not recognise this

3 when a child is found in what appear to be marginalised situations but does not feel it, or does not view it as marginalisation and, finally,

4 when a child is experiencing marginalisation but does not admit it.

The emergence of these four ways was influenced by the views of children themselves and the perceptions of teachers, as well as my observations within the particular context. Details about the methodology of the study, as well as examples from the fieldwork for each of the above ways with reference to particular children, can be found in articles that I have published earlier (e.g. Messiou, 2006a,b, 2008a). In what follows, I explain ways of conceptualising marginalisation in relation to four broad groupings that emerged from the study.

Group 1 The child experiences some kind of marginalisation that is recognised by almost everybody, including himself/herself

These children were the easiest to identify, since they were very open about their feelings. Their views were confirmed by others in the school and I was also in a position to observe their experiences of marginalisation. Children placed i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Preface
• Introduction: Bus journeys
• 1. Conceptualising marginalisation
• 2. Using the framework
• 3. Opening doors: Enabling voices to emerge
• 4. Looking closely: Bringing concerns to the surface
• 5. Making sense of the evidence: Sharing data with learners
• 6. Dealing with marginalisation: Encouraging inclusive thinking and practice
• 7. Engaging with students’ voices: An approach to inclusive education
• Conclusion: Collaborative journeys
• References
• Index