Breve reseña del mantenimiento industrial en Cuba

Students placed in the ‘learning support’ group were described as separate, timid and afraid and there was often a pitying aspect to students descriptions, tempered with phrases such as “I'm not being horrible but...”

Michaela this one is (..) not being horrible but they’re like (..) the people that need more (.) help

Kerry yeah (.) they all sit in learning support don’t they

There seemed to be a discomfort or unease about labelling this group compared to other groups. When discussing other groups, students fairly confidently said things like ‘these are unpopular ones’, ‘they’re the popular girls’ or ‘they’re the weird gay ones’, however when describing this group they often qualified their description or label, for example, by claiming that labelling them ‘learning support’ was not horrible.

Nath he’s learning support (.) so he’ll go he goes there (.) we’re not being horrible (.) they just hang around in their own learning support groups

Numerous studies have argued that ‘pity’ is negative (Hayes and Black, 2003; Han et al., 2006) and in fact Stramondo (2010: 121) argues that ‘pity is not only an emotion, but also a power relation’, which creates separation and a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’. As such this group of students were talked about as quite separate from other social groups in the school. Firstly in terms of location, these students were considered to physically occupy a separate space from other students. This space was termed ‘learning support’ and referred to an area of the school

91

near the learning support classrooms and a garden area near the school Reception. One student described this group of students as ‘the kids who hang around in learning support’, again linking the group to an area in the school.

In addition to spatial separation, the ‘learning support’ students were also considered separate in that they did not socialise with other groups in the school. Whilst many of the groups did not talk to certain groups, the learning support students were talked about as though they were entirely separate from the social landscape of the school, not just separate or excluded from some groups. Not only this, but this was understood to be the choice of the learning support students themselves as they were considered to be inept to fully participate in the social life of the school due to the construction of them as timid and afraid discussed earlier.

Nath yeah they’re lonely kind of people

Jonny they like to stay in learning support because they don’t like going anywhere else

Nath yeah they don’t like mixing with other people very much

Jonny it’s cause they’re nervous Nath yeah they get a bit scared

Here the boys clearly explain the separation of the learning support students from the other social groups as being caused or brought about by the learning support students themselves. However, this is not considered as something bad, but something to be expected, and ties in with the ‘pitying’ aspect discussed earlier. These students are seen to be socially inept and are described as ‘lonely’ ‘nervous’ and ‘scared’. Their separation is constructed as personal choice by saying that ‘they like staying in learning support’ or ‘they don’t like mixing’. This is not seen in other excluded groups such as unpopular students or loners. In these groups the students seem to be blamed for not adequately fitting in or demonised for choosing to spend time alone rather than with others. This will be discussed more fully later. In terms of the learning support students, association with the label ‘learning support’ allowed students to be separate from other social groups without being demonised. However, this label also meant that they were considered to prefer to be separate from other social groups, regardless of whether this was the case or not. Bunch and Valeo (2004) found that in school where a separate system for educating other students existed, this impacted negatively on those students’ friendships and interactions with other students. Equally,

92

students who are educated in separate areas are more likely to be treated as ‘second class citizens’ within the school (Dixon et al., 2004: 54). Whilst there is positive literature about the role of inclusive spaces and special units within schools (for example, Dyment and Bello, 2008; Holt et al., 2012; McAllister and Hadjri, 2013), what is seen here is that this physical separation causes social separation and a sense amongst the students that the ‘learning support’ students are not part of the same social landscape as the rest of the school, thus questioning this conception of ‘inclusion’. Furthermore, the student construction of this being the ‘learning support’ students’ choice, and ideas of their ineptitude and timidity, means that this separation is legitimised.

The term 'learning support' was used by all three interview groups and there was almost 100% agreement about which students belonged to that group. To a certain extent this is a school created group as there was a learning support teaching group and a learning support building. However, even with this there was still some vagueness about membership. In particular there was disagreement about two students, Paul and Martin. Paul was placed in either the ‘learning support’ group or the 'football boys', whereas Martin was placed in either 'learning support' or the 'druggies/stoners'. These multiple placements suggest a number of things about social groups in the school. Firstly, even friendship or group membership is context dependent. It seems very possible that Paul and Martin may have different friends and belong to different groups in lessons or at lunch time. Equally, students can have multiple groups of friends. In Paul's case he may associate with the learning support group, and his ability to play football means he is also sometimes part of the football boys as well. Paul’s case also highlights the possibility of different insider/outsider perspectives. The boys’ interview group, who contained a self-identified member of the 'football boys', placed Paul in the ‘learning support’ group. It was actually the girls interview group who placed Paul as a ‘football boy'. Each group of students’ knowledge about other groups is different, meaning that each group has a different perspective on the social groupings in their school. Paul was considered a ‘football boy’ by the girls’ interview group even though Paul himself may or may not consider himself a member of this group and some of the ‘football boys’ may or may not consider him a member of this group.

In relation to what was said at the beginning, this example highlights the relative nature of belonging to a certain social group and disrupts the idea that one social network or picture of social groups and group membership exists across the year group. This highlights the

93

importance of a focus on the way that people relate, rather than simply what relations are considered to exist and therefore supports the questioning of relational sociology and network based approaches in Chapter Two, and at the beginning of this chapter.