The educational âunderachievementâ of Gypsy/Traveller children was first identified in the late 1960s. The inability of children from these communities to read and write due to a lack of schooling became a major concern (DES 1967). As a result, a number of different policy initiatives and support mechanisms were pursued to address these concerns. These initially included support in the form of summer schools of voluntary teachers teaching children and adults on Gypsy/Traveller sites (Cemlyn et al. 2009). Later, local education authority provision came in the form of qualified teachers visiting sites in mobile caravans. Finally, with an emphasis on âmulticulturalismâ and inclusion, particularly during the 1990s and 2000s, a network of Traveller Education Support Services (TESS) were set up as well as subsequent targeted funding to provide further focused support for Gypsy/Traveller children in mainstream classrooms (Derrington and Kendall 2007a). However, although such targeted involvement had some impact ââŠthese pupils remain amongst the most vulnerableâ (Wilkin et al. 2010: viii) and âamong the lowest-achieving groups at every Key Stage of educationâ (DFE 2012).
In order to investigate why these children remain amongst the most vulnerable in relation to school âengagementâ and âachievementâ, this book explores literature which suggests that a key factor involved is related to the historical and cultural formation of a Sedentarised society and the subsequent demonization of Nomadism and a Nomadic way of life (Derrington and Kendall 2007a, b). The relationship here with educational success is that schooling in England has increasingly involved children being settled in one place and attending the same school at each stage of schooling. This is to ensure that children and young people remain âon trackâ to achieve a particular educational trajectory that will ultimately prepare them for access to university at the age of 18â19, i.e. good SATs (Standardised Assessment Tasks) results at Key Stage (KS) 1 and 2 (children aged 5â7 and 7â11 respectively), five or more AâC grades at KS3 (aged 11â16) and three or more good âAâ levels, or equivalent, at KS4 (aged 16â18). Schools themselves are also keen for children to do well in these tests, as good results will secure a strong position in published league tables, which has become the tool used to measure a âgoodâ school.
Despite changes in the occupational practices of many Gypsy/Traveller communities in England mobility remains very much part of their lives; which in turn affects the attendance of children at school, and thus their overall engagement and educational experience. Although many of these communities are settled on sites, with some even taking up permanent housing (Clark and Greenfields 2006; Kenny 2014), it is this value attributed to Nomadism and mobility as a cultural way of life, that remains a key factor at the heart of childrenâs schooling engagement, experience and retention (Derrington 2007).
The irony here is that educational achievement today seems to be about an ability to be able to move and settle in an area that has a âgoodâ school. The wider social, cultural and political aims of current educational provision being framed within a globalised context (Rizvi and Lingard 2009) also suggests the need to be mobile in order to access and strive in the global market. It therefore appears that the mobility of Gypsy/Traveller communities is a different mobility to that engaged by the âmobileâ Sedentarised population. Such ideas connect with the work of Skeggs (2004: 49) who notes that âMobility is a resource to which not everyone has an equal relationshipâ. There are different degrees of mobility, based on ideas of respectability whereby âThe mobility of choice of the affluent British middle-classes, conducted in relative ease, is quite different from the mobility of the international refugee or the unemployed migrantâ (Skeggs 2004: 49). As Shubin (2011: 1930) puts it âThere is a certain contestation between social acceptance of certain kinds of movement, and lifestyles based on continuous mobile engagement with the worldâ. Whereas movement from the Sedentarised community is voluntary, and seen as a âsocial good, a resource, not equally available to allâ (Skeggs 2004: 50) the mobile Gypsy/Traveller âhas long been conceptualised as an âaberrationâ (based on âSedentaristâ thinking prioritising fixity over movement) or as âfreedomâ to travel and escape from specific places and the trappings of the stateâ (Shubin 2011: 1930). As a result nomadic movement is seen as a threat to ârespectable mobilityâ and the need to become âfirmly fixed in order to be identifiable and governableâ (Skeggs 2004: 50). Shubin (2011) suggests that the problem is associated with this idea that the âmobility of travelling people is seen as detached from space and considered as simple repositioning or abstract movement with no connections to specific placesâ (Shubin 2011: 1930). Therefore, nomadism as a cultural practice becomes associated with not belonging, conflating âplacelessnessâ with deviant behaviour (Leahy 2014).
In order to widen the debate this book also engages with literature that argues how neo-liberal education policy has continued to undermine educational opportunities for certain children. This has eroded the egalitarian project of social justice in terms of addressing structural inequalities that may exist. With its focus on individualism, self-interest, deregulation of the state and the privatisation of the public sector, neo-liberalism has transformed âevery human domain and endeavour, along with humans themselvesâ and reduced everything to economics (Brown 2015: 10). Walby (2009: 12) notes that âwhile neoliberalism appears to laud a small state, this is only in relation to the economy; in practice neoliberal governments simultaneously develop a large coercive state to maintain the domestic social order and position in the global state systemâ. Consequently, âall spheres of existence are framed and measured by economic terms and metrics, even when those spheres are not directly monetizedâ (Brown 2015: 10), including education.
This has led to schools becoming increasingly âmarketisedâ and organised around the economic ideals of consumerism and the âproductâ (Apple 2005). The âschool productâ has become associated with competition and outcomes in tests, with results being published in league tables. A strong position in these league tables has therefore come to represent the marker of a âquality productâ that parents can âchoose to buyâ into when seeking to find a school place for their child(ren). Consequently, with a focus on performativity schools compete to reach the top of these league tables, in order to attract parents of children who possess the âright attributesâ to do well in these tests and parents that value the educational trajectory that will ultimately secure their child(ren) a university place. This is the neo-liberal project, in that ââŠfreeing the market from state controls was the best way to ensure economic growth, which in turn was believed to deliver human well-being, freedom, democracy, and civil libertiesâ (Walby 2009: 11). The problem with this is the myth that democracy will inevitably follow as market forces and parental choice will ensure systems are fair and just for every single individual irrespective of their social and/or cultural location.
As a result, the contemporary political climate has reconfigured the conception of education and one concern expressed in this book is with how neo-liberal education policy as a globalising economic project, has impacted schooling ideologically at the expense of equality for all children. I argue how neo-liberal policy architecture has established modes of knowledge that have supressed, and even silenced, alternative narratives of education. For example narratives that relate to child-centeredness, experiential learning and the holistic development of the whole person, that maybe more consilient with progressive ideologies and early child development (Moore and Clarke 2016). I also want to assert here that neo-liberalism has reaffirmed the idea of individualism and meritocracy as a self-reliant hegemonic ideology and thus eroded ideas of collectivism and the actual responsibility of the importance of collective democratic membership and responsibility (Skeggs 1997, 2004).
Therefore for me, the question this book raises is an ontological one that relates to the tensions in the encounter between the cultural values and beliefs of nomadic communities based on mobility which is âconsidered one of the key elements of their engagement with the worldâ (Shubin 2011: 1931). My thinking is that the values underpinning the expectations of neo-liberal education policy based on individualism, choice and performance and its relationship with the global economy is ontologically opposed to Gypsy/Traveller culture. Therefore, this book argues for an education system that respects the cultural identity of these travelling communities and one that is consilient with the complexities of their situation and desire to remain nomadic.
Why Gypsy/Travellers?
My primary interest in the relationship between children and young people from Gypsy/Traveller communities and schooling initially stems from my own personal experiences of being an âinterrupted learnerâ during my primary school years in England in the early 1970s. Up until the age of 10, I suppose you could argue that my family adopted a travelling lifestyle. My father was in the army and as a family we moved around quite a lot, often midway through a typical school year. As a consequence of this, my brother, twin sister and I experienced a disrupted learning pattern, often missing a few days out of school as we travelled and settled into a new place and subsequently a new school. Altogether, we attended five different primary schools between the ages of 5â11. Our younger sister, seven years my junior, on the other hand, remained in one primary school.
When my twin sister and I were 10 years old, my father retired from the army and my parents decided to buy a house and settle down in one place. My brother was 11 at the time and went on to a local secondary school, where my twin sister and I joined him and remained until the age of 16. Despite being a new comprehensive school, this secondary school had retained some of its grammar school âtrappingsâ and was streamed. On enrolling at the school we all found ourselves in the bottom âstreamsâ. I remember in the first year at this school that, like my brother, I had to take extra English lessons while our peers learnt French. My twin sister made good progress and moved to the middle strea...