‘This is a school, it's not a site’: teachers' attitudes towards Gypsy and Traveller pupils in schools in England, UK

Abstract

This article examines teachers' attitudes towards Gypsy and Traveller pupils in one primary and one secondary school in an inner-London borough in England, UK. The research is based on in-depth interviews with 20 teachers, heads, deputies and classroom assistants. The main aims of the study were to examine examples of 'good practice' in schools and to explore strategies that would improve the educational outcomes for Gypsy and Traveller groups. This article will argue that despite schools implementing inclusive measures for Gypsy and Traveller pupils, this alone does not encourage positive attitudes or change attitudes towards them. In some cases, such practices work to emphasise the difference and outsider status of these groups.

Turning difficulties into possibilities: engaging Roma families and students in school through dialogic learning

“…Overall, hardly any child had an appropriate level of attainment, and conflicts among pupils and between them and teachers occurred every day. In this scenario, many Roma families removed their children from the school and no longer trusted the teachers, contrasting with the widespread myth about the Roma that they are not interested in education and dislike schools (Bhopal, 2011;Gómez & Vargas, 2003). According to Wilson (2003), ghetto schools provide low-quality education and low expectations.…”

The exclusionary side effects of the civic integration paradigm: boundary processes among youth in Swiss schools

“…curricula) and informal mechanisms (e.g. interactions between teachers and students) that produce social differences (Schiffauer et al 2002;Bhopal 2011;Bryan 2009;Gomolla and Radtke 2002;Zembylas 2010;Weber 2006). Some of these ethnographic works study the lived experiences of immigrant youth in schools and how their identification and positioning are shaped by institutional ideas about societal membership and related practices (Mannitz 2003;Sunier 2000).…”

The instrumental dimension in learning communities

“…Especialmente es a aquel alumnado procedente de barrios desfavorecidos sobre el que no se prioriza en su aprendizaje el esfuerzo ni la adquisición de los conocimientos básicos (Bhopal, 2011;Stedman & Kaestle, 1987;Valls & Kyriakides, 2013). En estos contextos habitualmente se prima compensar con mayor afectividad o una formación humanística las supuestas carencias del alumnado, relegando a un -356-Intangible Capital -http://dx.…”