MODELO DE CONVENIO DE IMPLEMENTACIÓN

Poverty is at the core of many of the class specific difficulties facing our DEIS pupils. While this is a political problem that cannot be solved in schools, it is a powerful backdrop shaping pupils’ educational experience. According to the latest Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) data (CSO 2018) there are 230,000 children living in poverty in Ireland in 2017. This means “children are the single biggest group of the population living in poverty” (Ward 2019). This has detrimental impacts on wellbeing as it limits life chances, generates feelings of inferiority and shame and “destroys the human spirit” (ibid.).Poverty not only dims opportunities but has devastating effects on pupil wellbeing and increases levels of anxiety and stress. Pupils were very aware of financial difficulties and the strain educational costs put on their families. Due to this heightened awareness of economic capital and lack of the pupils were very sensitive to the need of getting a good job purely for economic security. The pupils are acutely aware of the consequences of poverty and discuss the importance of education to make sure they do not end up homeless, hungry or on the dole.

“Ya cos you don’t have a good education you are not gonna be able to get a job. If you don’t

have a job you can’t get money and then you are just gonna be poor” (Donnacha, Greenhill

122

“Cos you don’t want a job that you don’t get like a lot of money for…it’s better to have a job

you get a lot of money for so then you can pay for your own stuff…you wouldn’t have to

worry about it” (Emma, North Meadows N.S.).

Emma portrays the emotional side of poverty and the constant worry surrounding financial difficulty. Heather also illustrates a deep awareness of the vicious cycle following low educational qualification and poverty. She implies low literacy attainment levels results in social welfare payments (the dole) and once receiving the dole it is very difficult to then work your way up to an “actual good job”.

“if you leave school illiterate you can’t get as good a job and then you would be living on the

dole and the dole doesn’t give you enough money to live on…then trying to get an actual

good job would be very hard cos you can’t do anything that good to get your first job”

(Heather, Greenhill N.S.).

The pupils in my study portray the added emotional burden financial instability places on

working class pupils in DEIS schools. School’s role in social reproduction is understood by the pupils. There is an increased pressure for them to do well in school as it is seen as the main mode of improvement to ensure future financial security. This is in opposition to O’Brien & Ó’Fathaigh who stated “Education is seen as more than the acquisition of qualifications and social mobility” (2005:73). In fact all pupils when asked the purpose of school and the importance of school stated it was for qualifications, getting a job and as a means of improvement. James’s drawing (figure 9) below states “School is about learning and education to get a good job”. The recurrence of improvement narratives in working class

studies is nothing new and was a significant finding of Skegg’s well documented study (1997) with working class women.

123

Figure 9: James’s Drawing (Greenhill N.S.)

These improvement narratives in a DEIS context again show the danger of political rhetoric around social mobility and an emphasis on raising aspirations among working class as “such fantasies estrange the working classes from any sense of personal worth or feelings of value if they remain as they are” (Reay 2013:666). It also fails to acknowledge the unequal structures and resources impacting social mobility. Pupils in my study heartbreakingly echoed Reay’s sentiments by emphasising that education was a means of improvement and a way of bettering themselves, indicating that to stay where they are, or where their family is, is not sufficient:

“I want a job better than my parents…for a better life” (Jeanann, North Meadows N.S.).

“I don’t want to carry on the same as my mom cos like she just dropped out of school in third

124

made. And then she did hairdressing for 10 years and she does it now herself and she said

you could still get a better job than me” (Chelsea, Greenhill N.S.).

“School is important to help us learn, make new friends, make us smarter and inspire us to

become different” (Kerry, Holy Oaks N.S).

While there is plenty to unpack in the words above, what is clear is an overwhelming sense of a need “to do better”, “become different” and consequently embedded negative connotations associated with their home field. Ingram (2018:2) highlighted the dark side of a “parent telling their child that their life and their way of being is not to be valued” and unfortunately this subordinated view of working class life is also witnessed in the cases above with pupils stating they wanted “to do better” than their parents as a common account. The need to become different is evidence that they have internalised the belief that to be of value you need to change your identity to become more middle class. This again underlines the power of the school and more specifically the role individual teachers play in habitus formation. This was made most apparent through my interviews with Kayleigh.

Kayleigh’s Story

Kayleigh is a bright and articulate 12 year old girl who is achieving well in school and is above average ability in her class according to her teacher. She speaks about being able to “put on like an act” in school and has never gotten in trouble in school. She refers to herself as “a little goody two-shoes” but is adamant this is only her school persona, and is not at all like this outside of school, “once you see me outside school I am not a goody two-shoes I swear. I just don’t want to get in trouble so I just be good in school.” It is clear the power of

125

the institutional habitus has shaped Kayleigh’s habitus to ensure conformity. Her teacher happened to interrupt our first interview to get something in the room and spoke to us both about Kayleigh as “a rock of sense. You see Gemma she will go to college this one, she will go to college”. Kayleigh is well aware that to be valued in school you must sign up to the notion of college being the ultimate goal. However, once the class teacher left Kayleigh made it clear, despite the impression she gave her class teacher, college is not something she values. She illustrated here just how proficient she has become at playing the rules of the game, and the juggling act needed to manage these two identities. Within the school field, the habitus she portrays is one that aspires to go to college, while her authentic self sees no real value in it.

“I kind of don’t really want to go to college. That’s just like some people’s opinions about

college I don’t really want to go cos like my sister only went to Beauty college to study make

up and stuff and like she only went there not even a year and she ended up coming a

supervisor in a shoe shop.

Did she not like the beauty college?

I think she actually really liked it. I think she just couldn’t take it anymore I think it was just

really annoying” (Kayleigh, Greenhill N.S.).

Kayleigh would be the first generation in her family to attend college and it is clear her view of college has been strongly influenced by the experience of her sister dropping out of Beauty College. While it is not clear what pressures led to her sister’s departure, what is apparent is how Kayleigh has understandably internalised this as college as a waste of time. No-one in her immediate family has had a positive experience of third level and hence the

126

social and cultural capital to recognise the rules of the game around third level is lacking. These restrictions play a part in cultivating a habitus that college is not for her. Her teacher also by emphasising college as the only viable and respectable option, however unintentional is also sending Kayleigh the concealed message that the choices her family made are not correct or to be valued, and this is where our own prejudicial biases as teachers have to be critically reflected upon. She goes on to state she would like to be a crèche teacher and in contradiction to her teacher’s earlier suggestion states “I’m probably not gonna waste seven years of my life in college learning to become a teacher”. She also adds she would not like to be the teacher that is like “O give out them books, stop that and stuff like that just little kids running around the classroom and just playing little games with them and stuff.” It is fair to say her impression of what it means to be a teacher is very much in line with the traditional, authoritative teacher. She talks about importance of school to help us “learn to speak properly”. There is a clear devaluing of working class cultures, lifestyle choices and dispositions. Kayleigh has learned how to reconcile her habitus to appease her teacher and in doing so portrays the “right” attitudes towards third level even though this is not in line with her actual beliefs. In essence she finds herself in a middle class field that does not value or recognise her working class habitus (Ingram 2011; 2018) so she essentially resigns it at the school gate, and in doing so receives positive feedback from her teacher. This allows her to successfully play within the rules of the game and to move with ease between the two fields. This does however come at an emotional cost with Kayleigh expressing a lot of anger in her:

“in my experience now I would have a load of anger in me just like a random thing and one

127

out…Cos like it’s a bit stressful if you keep everything inside cos your head just goes all

around the place so I say its good to just like talk out” (Kayleigh, Greenhill N.S.).

While she has mastered the ability to navigate opposing fields, the necessary juggling act of self- management and resignation of habitus is leading to immense emotional pressure and effort. Kayleigh’s story also highlights the danger of schools proffering the symbolically violent notion that a college degree is the ultimate goal of education and the only way for working class pupils to legitimatise their cultural capital (Skeggs 1997). The massification of third level education has resulted in it becoming the only “respected” choice and those choosing not to progress as being “othered” (Bowers-Brown 2012:66). There is vast political rhetoric around aiming high with little discussion given to the unequal structures that limit aspirations becoming a reality (St. Clair & Benjamin 2011; Abrahams 2016). While research shows DEIS schools lag behind schools nationally in terms of aspirations and expectations to attend third level (Kavanagh et al 2015; Kavanagh, Weir & Moran 2017), this study would like to recognise and acknowledge that the working class pupils had high, aspirational goals to proceed in a wide range of training and employment paths (see figure 10).