An overview of educational policy development

A year before the passing of the Caravan Sites Act in 1968, the Plowden Report ‘Children and their Primary Schools’ (DES, 1967) described Gypsy children as ‘probably the most severely deprived children in the country’ and spotlighted the extent of their unmet needs. The report concluded that around 90 per cent of Gypsy children did not access school at all. Similar concerns were echoed in the same year in a report published by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Local Education Authorities at that time were urged to consider ways of improving educational access but lack of political will in many parts of the country meant that the anticipated widespread provision of legitimate residential sites failed to materialise. Urbanisation and planning legislation such as the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act (1960) had led to a shortage of legal stopping places, and the introduction of Designation Orders (which gave Local Authorities greater and speedier powers of eviction) effectively outlawed the traditional way of life for Gypsies and Travellers.

With local authorities slow to respond to their statutory obligations (despite access to a central pool of funding to support the education of Travelling children at a rate of 75 per cent) it was largely left to the isolated efforts of voluntary and charity organisations (such as the National Gypsy Education Council and the Advisory Committee for the Education of Romany and other Travellers [ACERT]) to take the lead in developing mobile classrooms and summer schools’ projects and for undertaking research, which generated hard evidence about the severity of the problem. Eventually, in 1970, a specialist HMI (Her Majesty's Inspector) was appointed to oversee and co-ordinate developments in Traveller education and three years later the first official national meeting for Traveller Education practitioners was held, paving the way for networking on a national scale and the subsequent launch of the professional organisation which is today known as NATT (National Association for Teachers of Travellers).

Two landmark events in 1977 generated further impetus when Gypsy children in Croydon and Enfield were denied access to a school place on the grounds that they were living on illegal encampments. Subsequent protests heralded by the above mentioned organisations exposed a loophole in the law and led to the inclusion of a clause in the 1980 Education Act which explicitly emphasised the right of Romany and Traveller children to an education.

An influential discussion paper published by HMI in 1983 (HMI, 1983) estimated that there were between 12,000 and 15,000 Traveller children of school age in England; the vast majority being out of school. The paper suggested that while schools claimed to have an ‘open-door’ policy for Travellers and Gypsies this was often underpinned with unacknowledged discrimination due to lack of awareness. The Swann Report (DES, 1985) made this even more explicit. This report was published as a result of a government inquiry into the education of children of African-Caribbean heritage and although Gypsies were not recognised officially as a minority ethnic group until 1989, the Swann Report acknowledged that:

Furthermore, the report made reference to the lack of adequate site provision and the constant threat of eviction facing many Gypsy families. In terms of policy development, the Swann Report was instrumental in triggering debates within and between education departments and accelerating provision for Traveller education within existing Multicultural education services (Hawes and Perez, Reference Hawes and Perez1995).

In 1990, the funding mechanism for Traveller Education was replaced by a central grant administered by the Department of Education and Science (DES). This gave Local Education Authorities the opportunity to bid for funding that would ensure ‘unhindered access to, and full integration (of Traveller children) in mainstream education’ (DES, 1990). This policy move put an end to isolated examples of on-site, mobile provision and saw the rapid expansion of dedicated teams of teachers supporting Traveller children in schools across the country as the grant regulations gave priority to this type of provision. Despite the rapid gains that were made in provision as a result of this new funding stream, available funds were gradually withdrawn over the next few years and there followed a quick succession of changes in the way that Traveller education was supported financially. In 2000, the Ethnic Minority Achievement and Traveller Grant replaced the central grant and in the following year, a separate specific grant for Traveller education was reintroduced in the shape of the Traveller Achievement Grant (TAG). In 2003 this was merged into a Vulnerable Children Grant which remains the key source of funding today.

Although policy developments concerning the education of Gypsy Traveller children in England have accelerated significantly over the past fifteen years or so, issues relating to access and achievement remain matters of concern. Bhopal et al.'s (2000) study for the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) ‘Working towards inclusive education’ again highlighted the issue of low attainment amongst Traveller pupils and identified effective practice in improving attendance and raising attainment. The report highlighted the need for higher expectations of Traveller pupils, the need for effective anti-bullying policies and the importance of the role of Traveller Education Services in terms of helping Traveller pupils’ access and achievement within the secondary school context.

In 2003, the DfES published ‘Aiming High: Raising the Achievement of Minority Ethnic pupils’ (DfES, 2003), which offered advice and guidance in improving the attendance and achievement of Traveller pupils. The report acknowledged that there was ‘still a long way to go . . . for the secondary age group in particular’. Similarly, Ofsted (2003) ‘Provision and Support for Traveller Pupils’ concluded that still ‘the vast majority of Traveller pupils linger on the periphery of the education system. The situation has persisted for too long and the alarm bells rung in earlier reports have yet to be heeded’.

Significantly, the Every Child Matters national framework (DfES, 2004) which sets out a co-ordinated response aimed at protecting children's well-being and enhancing their potential to succeed, overlooks the specific needs of this most vulnerable group of children, despite conflicting policies on sites and accommodation which fail to acknowledge the impact this has on a child's legal right to full access to the National Curriculum.

The remainder of this paper draws on data from a longitudinal study that aimed to examine factors other than mobility that might impact on Gypsy Traveller students’ school attendance and engagement. It uncovered aspects of educational policy that are failing to meet the needs of even sedentary Gypsies and Travellers.

The context of the research

The qualitative study, which was conducted by the authors between 2000 and 2005, tracked and analysed the educational experiences of a group of 44 Gypsy Traveller students as they transferred and progressed through secondary school in 15 local authorities (LAs) in England. The LAs involved were located across England from the north to the south-east, and included both urban and rural areas. The study was sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation.

A total of 24 boys and 20 girls (and their parents) agreed to take part in the longitudinal study, although the research adopted a multi-perspective design, and the range of participants included other adult relatives, primary and secondary school headteachers, primary school class teachers, heads of year in secondary schools, special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) in the case of students with special educational needs, form tutors, and Traveller Education Service (TES) teachers and/or support workers.

The purpose of the research was to investigate the complex issue of secondary school attendance and engagement for Gypsy Traveller children by adopting a phenomenological design which would gain a clearer insight into the nature of the difficulties identified thus far by researchers and policy makers. As far as possible, the sample was drawn up to include children with varying levels of attainment, and those with older siblings, as well as others who were the eldest in their family and therefore the first children to transfer to secondary school. The main criterion for selection, however, was that of being relatively ‘settled’ and all participants therefore had been engaged in primary school education for at least the preceding two years. Although this effectively excluded highly mobile groups, the justification for this criterion was that it would help to distinguish factors associated with secondary school engagement, as opposed to access to schooling per se. Of the 44 students included in the study:

• • 21 lived on official sites provided by the local authority

• • 12 lived in housing

• • 8 lived on privately owned (or rented) plots of land

• • 3 lived on unofficial (but tolerated) sites.

Participants were identified and initially approached by Traveller education service (TES) teachers or home-school liaison officers who were known to those concerned and their families, during the final term of primary school, when the young people were aged 11. In most cases, the same member of the research team maintained contact with and interviewed the young people, their families and schools throughout the five-year period. Methods of data collection included four rounds of face-to-face interviews with the young people, their parents and teachers and interim questionnaires to schools and Traveller Education Services. Over 400 interviews were recorded. Transcripts were coded using Winmax data analysis software and analysed using an approach informed by interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith and Osborn, Reference Smith, Osborn and Smith2003). Initial findings have been reported in earlier publications (for example Derrington and Kendall, Reference Derrington and Kendall2004).

Challenges and barriers

Disturbingly, more than half of the students in the sample had dropped out of secondary school by the age of 14 and less than a third of them (13) completed their secondary education to the age of 16. As reported earlier, the vast majority of families in the study led a sedentary lifestyle and no longer travelled. Of the three young people who did live on unofficial sites, two experienced serious disruptions to their secondary education due to enforced movement. Shane and Linda each attended three different secondary schools during the research period. Linda'a experiences are summarised below:

Poor attendance by Gypsy Traveller students, particularly those of secondary school age, has been consistently flagged up for over thirty years (DES, 1967; Reiss, Reference Reiss1975; DES, 1985; Ofsted, 1996, 1999; Bhopal et al., Reference Bhopal, Gundara, Jones and Owen2000). Despite this awareness and the mechanisms that have been introduced in recent times to raise attendance levels generally, the situation for Gypsy Traveller students has barely improved and remains an area of ‘grave concern’ (Ofsted, 2001). Difficulties related to mobility of lifestyle and educational continuity and access have often determined the focus of discourse around the issue of attendance and rightly so. However, findings from this study of largely ‘settled’ Gypsy Travellers highlight a need to examine this phenomenon more closely and suggest that such a focus may divert attention away from other significant factors (such as those discussed below), which were amongst those found to be associated with irregular attendance and drop-out.

Racism

Scrutiny of attendance records revealed a high incidence of medical absence in some cases and, although these were authorised, interviews with staff revealed concern about the prevalence and authenticity of such absences. Further analysis suggested that illness-related absence was often linked to retrospective disclosure about bullying, racism or other social and emotional difficulties. In line with other reports (Ofsted, 1996; Lloyd et al., Reference Lloyd, Stead, Jordan and Norris1999) the majority of students in this study said that they experienced racial bullying within school as well as from the wider community. Generally, headteachers recognised that, despite efforts to challenge and combat the racism within their schools, prejudice amongst the wider community represented a pervasive force that was difficult to ignore.

This view was typical of more than half of the primary school headteachers who made reference to hostile attitudes (and actions such as petitions) in the local community against Gypsy Travellers. Interviews with staff in secondary schools revealed a similar outlook, although there were fewer references made to the issue. Teachers noted that it was the highly mobile groups of Gypsy Travellers who aroused the most mistrust and hostility from local residents. However, families who were housed also described the racism encountered from neighbours ‘anything goes wrong in this village, it's down to my house and that's what I get: “oh it must be the Gyppos”’ (sic).

The majority of students (almost 80 per cent) said that they were sometimes called racist names or were subjected to bullying in school. This was particularly prevalent during the first weeks and months at secondary school and usually took place outside the classroom, during breaks, when moving between lessons or on the journey to and from school. In most cases, this abuse was described as an occasional rather than a regular occurrence, although in a handful of cases, the bullying took place over several weeks or had continued intermittently over a period of two or three years. As well as direct name-calling there was also evidence of more subtle tactics employed by girls who socially excluded Gypsy Traveller peers or who made indirect racist remarks within their hearing. Six students (four boys and two girls) were physically attacked, for example they had been pushed down stairs and beaten, or had been threatened with offensive weapons.

In common with other studies into racial bullying (for example, O'Moore Reference O'Moore, Kirkham and Smithet al., 1997; Smith and Shu, Reference Smith and Shu2000; and Cline et al., Reference Cline, De Abreu, Fihosy, Gray, Lambert and Neale2002), this research also found a culture of non-reporting amongst students. In almost two-thirds of cases students did not report racist bullying or harassment to teachers because they had little faith in this approach. The underlying perception of the students was that institutional racism pervaded the system and prevented fair treatment: ‘the other kids just deny it so we don't bother’ ‘they said it was me and the teachers believed them’. More than a third of the students said they believed that certain teachers harboured and conveyed racist attitudes towards them.

Despite the culture of non-reporting, teachers were usually made aware because the students’ coping strategies often included physical or verbal retaliation. Almost half the pupils had been reprimanded or punished for physical acts that were, according to the students, responses to racist name-calling or bullying. There were also incidents when Gypsy Traveller students’ retaliation to verbal bullying led to their exclusion. A key issue appeared to be that systems of support and official procedures to address and deal with race-related bullying relied upon children and parents reporting them. Once members of staff were alerted to name-calling by the parents of the victims, this was usually seen to be dealt with effectively at the time by the mothers and students concerned.

Cultural dissonance

Many parents told the researchers that they instructed their children to settle disputes and deal with provocation by standing up for themselves and responding physically, even though this clashed with the cultural norms within school. This example is illustrative of the conflicting expectations (or cultural dissonance) that became evident through interviews with students, their parents and teachers. Cultural dissonance is a sense of discord or disharmony, experienced by individuals where cultural differences are unexpected, unexplained and therefore difficult to negotiate. Other conflicting messages were implicitly or explicitly communicated about concepts of childhood and adulthood and the purpose and value of secondary education generally. More specifically, examples of cultural dissonance were highlighted in relation to homework requirements, attendance regulations, moral codes, notions of safety and danger, the appropriateness of rules and sanctions and the range of career aspirations.

Experiences of cultural dissonance were described not only by the students and their parents but also by teachers and other members of staff in schools. For example, the way in which some Gypsy Traveller students communicated with staff on an adult-adult level could become a source of tension and be interpreted as insolence. This could then lead to a breakdown in student-teacher relationships. A number of the students, mainly boys, were perceived (by their teachers) to react inappropriately when reprimanded and always having the last word. Other students were prone to argue with staff about perceived injustice and this characteristic was met with mixed responses by teachers who valued the principle but felt exasperated by this apparent and unjustified breach of school etiquette. After-school detentions were typically boycotted by Traveller students (with full support from their parents), although the students concerned were willing to attend lunchtime detentions. There was a perception amongst some teachers that Gypsy Traveller children had more freedom at home and thus they found it difficult to accept authority at school. Cultural dissonance could also be linked to erroneous interpretations of parent behaviours such as a perceived lack of interest and support to explain why Traveller parents did not participate in consultation meetings and parents’ evenings. The research data suggest that early drop-out of secondary school is frequently preceded by a breakdown in home-school relationships associated with some aspect of cultural dissonance.

Low expectations

The study found that attendance was not always monitored or followed up rigorously by schools and that some teachers held and conveyed low expectations about Gypsy Traveller students’ attendance:

The interviews also revealed inconsistencies in the way that attendance regulations were interpreted and absences by Traveller students were recorded in the register. Some form tutors said that they authorised absences from Gypsy Traveller students even though the authenticity of the explanation was clearly in doubt:

In other schools there was an over-reliance on Gypsy Traveller liaison workers to act as the go-between over issues of attendance, rather than making contact with parents directly. Low expectations and stereotyped perceptions also seemed to be linked to a discernible lack of confidence in terms of how far Gypsy Traveller parents could be challenged about their parental responsibilities in this respect.