Excluded girls: interpersonal, institutional and structural violence in schooling

Abstract

School exclusion and violence are defined with boys as the reference point and relatively little attention is given to the various forms of exclusion—disciplinary exclusion, self‐exclusion and withdrawal from learning—to which girls are subject. Girls in difficulty at school receive less attention than their male peers from policy‐makers, teachers and researchers. They find it more difficult to access resources. The concept of exclusion needs to be expanded to encompass girls’ experiences. This paper explores the policy context in which girls’ exclusion occurs and examines contributory factors, arguing that together they constitute systemic violence. Forms of violence include verbal abuse, psychological violence and the everyday “incivilities” which often go unchallenged in school cultures. The paper draws on research which privileged student voices and considered them alongside those of service providers, to analyse girls’ school experiences, examining violence and exclusion at interpersonal, institutional and structural levels. Issues such as bullying, self‐exclusion, learning difficulties, peer relationships, teacher–student relationships and student pregnancies are considered.

Acknowledgements

The Girls and School Exclusion study was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I would like to acknowledge fellow members of the research team. Co‐director Dr Cathy Street of the New Policy Institute, London, played a key role in shaping the research project and in giving it its multi‐agency focus. Researchers Dr Marie Lall (New Policy Institute) and Kerry Vincent, formerly of the Centre for Citizenship Studies in Education, University of Leicester, were responsible for a large part of the data collection. Collaboration with both Cathy and Kerry has been particularly helpful in shaping my thinking. Many thanks too to the referees who read an earlier draft of this paper.

Notes

1. The research was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and a research report (Osler et al., 2002) has been published.

2. This paper draws on data from the full sample. However, constraints on the research team meant interviews with girls were recorded and transcribed in three out of the six sample areas: the Midlands EAZ, the Midlands LEA and the EAZ in the south. Those directly quoted in this article are therefore from this sub‐sample of 43 girls.

3. In 2003 the school inspection agency OfSTED published two reports on methods schools can use to enhance the achievement of boys (OfSTED, 2003a, 2003b). The press release which accompanied the publication of these reports quoted the chief inspector of schools as praising schools which tackle an ‘anti‐learning laddish culture’ (David Bell, 11 July 2003). Schools Minister David Miliband was widely reported as echoing this viewpoint: ‘We have to crack the lad culture that stops too many young boys doing well at school… Many boys don’t work well if left alone. Schools that give boys clear goals, individual attention and high expectations get more out of them’ (David Miliband, 11 July 2003).

4. Shortly after this interview took place, the neighbouring school received public recognition for its high academic achievements. Not surprisingly, the public image of success overlooked the school’s levels of exclusion, both formal and informal.

5. See also Osler and Starkey (2005).

6. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry report (Macpherson, 1999) proposed that we should recognise as racist incidents those incidents which are regarded as racist by the victim. Similarly, it may be helpful to include within our understanding of violence in schools all behaviours that are experienced by the victim as harmful or damaging.

7. Some writers have emphasised the (almost inevitable) violent nature of mass schooling and have concluded that the weight of evidence suggests that schools are more likely to cause violence than to ameliorate it (Davies, 2004; Harber, 2004).