boys is hindered by policy discourse of attainment and accountability. SEN statistics (see 3.9) reveal that BESD constitutes a large proportion of SEN and of those excluded. As behaviour is related to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity, this highlights the importance of school interventions to challenge boys’
constructions and the normalisations of this dominant discourse. However this cannot be achieved unless government policy makers acknowledge the
debilitating influences of discourses of accountability and target setting upon educational practitioners.
7.2 Reflections on research
This thesis contributes towards the body of knowledge about boys’ behaviours and their exclusion from school. It has illuminated the arguments about exclusion in particular framed by drawing on Foucault’s main concepts. However, although I believe that this research has unearthed interesting and useful information, the research is not without flaws.
To begin, I recognised that some aggressive and abusive parenting can also have genuine repercussions for children subjected to such abuse and neglect. Recent cases of parental abuse are reflected in such reports as Lord Laming’s inquest into the death of Victoria Climbié (2003) and the serious case review into the events around Baby Peter’s death in 2006 (Haringey, 2009). Although some respondents discussed the effects of aggression and violence in the home, extreme cases, resulting in death, were not raised by respondents and therefore are not considered in this thesis. However the reality of such parental neglect upon the wellbeing of children is acknowledged. The theoretical framework used in this thesis drew upon Foucault and seeks to understanding of how meaning is constructed through discourse; this does not negate the reality of the
consequences of abuse and neglect. Foucault, after all, did not deny that things can have a real material existence (Foucault, 1972).
While exclusion happens to middle-‐class boys as well as working-‐class boys, it is reported that it is more prevalent in poor working-‐class areas (Sodha and Margo 2010, Kane 2011). Educational practitioners tended not to refer to class as such but they made inference to working-‐classness within their explanations and conversations. Some boys’ comments appeared to be supportive of working-‐class identities while in contrast the educational
practitioners’ comments seemed both sympathetic and critical of working-‐class lifestyles. This was illustrated though respondents’ references to deprivation, poverty and “them”, while not mentioning the working-‐class by name.
Included in the interview methodology was the use of newspaper articles to encourage conversation. Significantly direct references to class did not occur within these newspaper cuttings. There is an explanation for this. Kane (2011) suggests that “in the 1970s and the 1980s … Gender displaced class as the main social category …” (Kane 2011, page 35) thus arguing, that as a result, class is less likely to feature within some discourse. As gender was the main focus of this research it is unsurprising that respondents failed to specifically mention class, as the conversations were motivated towards discussing boys’ gendered
behaviours. In addition Tyler (2008) argues that acknowledgments of class inequalities have been suppressed within contemporary Britain and that, “… the term ‘working-‐class’ has been incrementally emptied of meaning” (Tyler 2008, page 20), while Reay (2010) argues that dominant discourses are moving
towards making class invisible. I believe that interviewees in this study reflected these observations. Social class is a social construction, which MacNaughton (2005) argues is used as a form of “Othering” to repress and silence and thus advantage and disadvantage others. Respondents did this using indirect references to working-‐class to explain boys’ problem behaviour in school. However if exclusion happens to middle-‐class boys and working-‐class boys, an investigation into the discourses in operation in both social groups would be of significant importance.
If given the opportunity to further this research it would be prudent to diversify the locations in which the research is done. Undertaking research in a
variety of locations including inner city, suburbs and rural areas would enable a diverse catchment and might address the discussed voids of class, culture and ethnicity. It would also be useful to interview boys who had not been excluded to ascertain their constructions of masculinity and to ascertain if their
constructions were any different from boys considered to have behavioural problems.
The use of focus groups might also allow for analysis of peer interaction. It is acknowledged that peer pressure plays a significant part in the interaction of boys and influences their responses and behaviours. It is therefore surmised that the responses of “lone” boys in this research may be different from those of boys in peer groups. Therefore I consider that undertaking interviews with focus groups of boys might reveal alternative discourses in operation and in particular a deeper insight into the dominant masculine discourses in operation in peer groups in schools
Although it may be surmised that the research findings and conclusions are based on a limited number of interviews and are unique to one particular area, I argue that the research findings and implications for practice are valid and have relevance and application elsewhere.
Personal statement
Boys’ permanent exclusion from school is an important social justice issue because among the thousands of students permanently excluded from school each year, the large majority of those excluded are boys, there being eight times as many boys excluded as girls (www.politics.co.uk, 2009 , DfE, 2011b)
.
Boys are excluded from school for a variety of reasons and it is reported that once permanently excluded are much more likely than others to become unemployed, involved in crime and go to prison (Anderson, 2007 , Berman, 2009). As such this is a social justice issue worthy of investigation because of the misery and hopelessness that prison and unemployment are likely to bring.
At the end of 2007 I became a student at the London Metropolitan University engaging in an EdD course. At 56 years old, many of my friends, of similar age, wondered why I was doing so. Some of them were already retired or were considering early retirement while I was starting a new job as head teacher of a BESD school and now also going to engage in further study. My friends could not see the point of it. One of the most common comments was “What’s in it for you?” This was awkward to answer, not least because there were questions about male behaviour and boys’ behaviours at school that intrigued me but did not intrigue my friends. Significantly, one of the things that I have learned from my studies over the last eight years is why my question about male behaviours does not intrigue others. Male behaviour, particularly aggressive, violent and dominant masculinity, is taken-‐for-‐granted. It is assumed to be normal and questioning it brings amusement, denial and quite often ridicule, from females as well as from other men.
I was brought up in the 1950s and 1960s in the East End of London where bullying and other displays of hegemonic masculinity, in the playground and classroom, dominated much of my experience of school. As a result, boys’
disruptive and aggressive behaviour has always fascinated me. So as soon as the EdD course began, I had fixed in my mind what it was that I wanted to pursue for my thesis.