Title Alleviating Educational Disadvantage through Localised Policy Intervention

311 Pages·2017·4.7 MB·English

Provided by the author(s) and NUI Galway in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite the published
version when available.
Alleviating Educational Disadvantage through Localised Policy
Title
Intervention: Lessons for Success
Author(s) Feeley (Lohan), Judith-Ann
Publication
2014-02-10
Date
Item record http://hdl.handle.net/10379/4409
Downloaded 2023-03-14T00:11:05Z

Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above.
Alleviating Educational Disadvantage
through Localised Policy Intervention:
Lessons for Success

Student: Judith-Ann Feeley (Lohan)

PhD (Final Draft)
Submitted to the National University of Ireland, Galway

2013
This dissertation is submitted to the National University of Ireland,
Galway,
in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of PhD.

Head of Department: Dr. Mary Fleming

Supervisor: Dr. Mary Fleming
Abstract

Educational disadvantage, recognised as a factor in determining a child’s life-chances,
manifests itself in the form of resistance to and disengagement from school, resulting in
the inability of marginalised students to derive full benefit from the education system
(McKeown & Clarke, 2004; Kellaghan, 2001; Education Act, 1998). Although inclusion of
the ‘student voice’ is becoming more common in the decision-making process in schools,
students from lower socio-economic backgrounds have limited opportunities to participate
in processes of education reform in their schools.
Engaging students experiencing marginalisation as active participants in an intervention
such as the Student Engagement Programme (SEP), which is designed and adapted
through understanding the students’ social contextualisation, is a process that requires
examining their everyday lived experiences and determining how these experiences have
contributed and continue to contribute to the students’ personal and educational
development.
This research examined the process of engaging marginalised students as they
participated in the SEP, and then assessed the resulting outcomes for the students and
the school.
The research is informed by two theories: critical theory, which supports the framework of
action research, where through collective participation a ‘grassroots’ agenda for change
and development can be established, and Bourdieuian Cultural Reproduction Theory,
which scaffolds the aims of SEP, where, through a student-focused inquiry and student
participation in the programme, students can develop their skills in academic areas and
build their skills and capacity for dealing with socially related difficulties.
The principal findings from this research are that, for localised initiatives to help alleviate
educational disadvantage and thus enable better outcomes and life-chances of the
students, the programme must actively include the ‘student voice’ through exploring the
process of the students’ engagement and the outcomes of their engagement.

i
Acknowledgements

This body of work would not have been conceivable without the positive support of every
one of my colleagues and students at Glenmore Community College.
I want to express my gratitude to Dr. Mary Fleming, my supervisor, for her incisive advice,
clarity of thought and attention to detail; without her support this research project would
not have been possible.
To David Quin for your encouragement, support and patience throughout every stage of
this research process.
To Anne Dunning for your love and care.
To Anne and Maura Lohan for your love and support and constant words of
encouragement.
To John, Tara, Hannah and Emma for your love and support during the early days of my
research journey.
To my mother Mary and Richard for your constant love, kindness and support. To my
friends and family, especially my sister Jean, for your love, support, inspiration and
constant words of encouragement.
Finally, to Damien, Maria, Michael, Mairead and Michelle – without your love, patience
and support this would not have been possible. You have extended the definition of what
it is to be family.

ii
List of contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................... 1
1.1 My Background and its Impact on the Student Engagement
Programme: the Early Years ................................................................ 3
1.2 Personal Background .......................................................................... 3
1.3 Identifying the Issues: the Research Context .................................. 10
1.4 Turning-Point: Simple Project Inspires New Engagement.............. 14
1.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 18
Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................... 21
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 21
2.2 Models of Education .......................................................................... 24
2.3 Educational Theories ......................................................................... 26
2.3.1 The symbolic interactionist perspective .................................................................. 26
2.3.2 The rational choice perspective .............................................................................. 27
2.3.3 The functionalist perspective .................................................................................. 28
2.3.4 Conflict theory ......................................................................................................... 29
2.3.5 Educational disadvantage: cultural perspectives .................................................... 30
2.3.6 Cultural reproduction ............................................................................................... 30
2.4 Educational Disadvantage: the Irish Story ....................................... 39
2.5 Explanations of Educational Disadvantage ..................................... 42
2.5.1 Pathological explanations ....................................................................................... 43
2.5.2 Transmitted deprivation .......................................................................................... 43
2.5.3 Home-based factors ................................................................................................ 44
2.5.4 School factors ......................................................................................................... 44
2.5.5 Structural views ....................................................................................................... 45
2.5.6 Post-structural explanations .................................................................................... 45
2.5.7 Disadvantaged groupings ....................................................................................... 45
2.5.8 Socio-economic disadvantage ................................................................................ 46
2.6 The Education System in Ireland ...................................................... 48
2.6.1 Decline in standards ............................................................................................... 50
2.6.2 Overview of Ireland’s response to educational disadvantage ................................ 52
2.7 Widening Access to Third Level: New Policies and Initiatives ....... 60
2.8 Summary ............................................................................................. 62
Chapter 3: School Improvement and Student Engagement ... 63
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 63
3.2 School Effectiveness Research (SER) .............................................. 65
3.3 Criticisms of SER ............................................................................... 68
3.4 School Improvement Research (SIR) ................................................ 69
3.5 Effective School Improvement .......................................................... 72
3.6 Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Schools .................................. 73
iii
3.7 The Student Voice .............................................................................. 74
3.8 Meaningful Student Involvement ...................................................... 78
3.9 Schools as Learning Organisations – a Possible Answer .............. 82
Chapter 4: Methodology............................................................ 90
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 90
4.2 Action Research ................................................................................. 90
4.2.1 Data collection......................................................................................................... 99
4.3 SEP Questions .................................................................................. 100
4.4 Methods of Data Collection ............................................................. 101
4.5 Participant Observation and the Research Diary .......................... 105
4.6 Focus Groups ................................................................................... 106
4.6.1 Group dynamics in the focus groups .................................................................... 108
4.7 Interviews .......................................................................................... 111
4.8 Student Research Diary and Final Report ...................................... 111
4.9 Data Analysis .................................................................................... 112
4.10 Research Issues and Limitations .................................................. 113
4.10.1 Validity and reliability .......................................................................................... 113
4.10.2 Research ethics .................................................................................................. 115
4.11 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 118
Chapter 5: The Student Engagement Programme (SEP) ...... 119
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 119
5.2 The Student Engagement Programme (SEP) ................................. 119
5.2.1 Target cohort and student identification: Year 1 ................................................... 120
5.2.2 The SEP team ....................................................................................................... 121
5.3 SEP Project Overview ...................................................................... 123
5.3.1 Student Engagement Programme (SEP) 2011/2012............................................ 124
5.3.2 Data collection....................................................................................................... 127
5.4 The Development of SEP: 2009 – 2012 ........................................... 133
5.5 Cycle 1: 2009/2010 ............................................................................ 133
5.5.1 Diagnosing and Defining – Student Profile 2009/2010 – Outcome ...................... 140
5.5.2 Action Implementation – the Intervention 2009/2010 ........................................... 140
5.5.3 Determine – the Success of the Intervention 2009/2010 – Outcomes ................. 141
5.5.4 Modify – SEP Processes 2009/2010 .................................................................... 142
5.5.5 Reflection – (Cycle 1) ............................................................................................ 143
5.6 Cycle 2: 2010/2011 ............................................................................ 144
5.6.1 Action Implementation – the Intervention 2010/2011 ........................................... 151
5.6.2 Determine – the Success of the Intervention 2010-2011 – Outcomes ................. 152
5.6.3 Modify – SEP Processes (2010/11) ...................................................................... 153
5.6.4 Reflection (Year 2) ................................................................................................ 154
5.7 Cycle 3: 2011/2012 ............................................................................ 156
5.7.1 Determine – the Success of the Intervention: Outcomes ..................................... 159
5.7.2 Reflection (Year 3) ................................................................................................ 163
iv
5.8 Teachers Interviews – Views on SEP .............................................. 164
5.9 Summary ........................................................................................... 178
Chapter 6: Conclusion ............................................................ 180
Chapter 7: Bibliography .......................................................... 193
Appendix 1 ..................................................................................226
Appendix 2 ..................................................................................231
Appendix 3 ..................................................................................232
Appendix 4 ..................................................................................236
Appendix 5 ..................................................................................243
Appendix 6 ..................................................................................255
Appendix 7 ..................................................................................256
Appendix 8 ..................................................................................261
Appendix 9 ..................................................................................264
Appendix 10 ............................................................................... 272
Appendix 11 ............................................................................... 283
Appendix 12 ............................................................................... 295
Appendix 13 ............................................................................... 297
Appendix 14 ............................................................................... 301

v
List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Differences in educational advancement rates, by socio-economic groupings 58
Figure 3.1: Cycle of Meaningful Student Involvement ......................................................... 80
Figure 3.2: Students as partners in school change ............................................................. 81
Figure 4.1: Model of emancipatory action research – Zuber-Skerritt .................................. 95
Figure 4.2: The Action Research Spiral .............................................................................. 96
Figure 5.1: SEP Project Cycles ......................................................................................... 123
Figure 5.2: The Student Engagement Programme (SEP)................................................. 125
Figure 5.3: The Student Engagement Programme (SEP)................................................. 126
Figure 5.4: Summary of the SEP Questions – Transformative Paradigm:
Action Research (AR) ...................................................................................... 128
Figure 6.1: The Student Engagement Programme (SEP) Approach ................................ 183
Figure 6.2: Elements of the Final Student Engagement Programme (SEP) ..................... 186

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Leaving Cert exam results by socio-economic background –
father’s occupation (2006) ................................................................................... 57
Table 3.1: Theoretical developments in other disciplines and the SER .............................. 68
Table 3.2: The principles of authentic school improvement ................................................ 71
Table 3.3: Elements of meaningful student involvement..................................................... 81
Table 4.1: Diagnosing and Defining – Student Profile ...................................................... 102
Table 4.2: Action – Implementation: the Intervention ........................................................ 104
Table 4.3: Determine – Success of the Intervention ......................................................... 105
Table 5.1: Student Engagement Programme (SEP) Team 2009–2013............................ 122
Table 5.2: Student Engagement Programme (SEP) Team 2009–2010............................ 135

vi
List of abbreviations
AR Action Research
BTC Breaking The Cycle
CAO Central Applications Office
DARE Disability Access Route to Education
DAS Disadvantaged Area Scheme
DAT Differential Aptitude Test
DES Department of Education and Skills
DEIS Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Disadvantaged Schools
FETAC Further Education Training Awards Council
FPYC Future-Proof Your Career
HEA Higher Education Authority
HEAR Higher Education Access Route
HSCL Home School Community Liaison
JCSP Junior Certificate Support Programme
LCA Leaving Certificate Applied
LCVP Leaving Certificate Vocational Programme
MLL Management Leadership Learning
NAPS National Anti-Poverty Strategy
NFQ National Framework of Qualifications
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment – OECD
PTR Pupil Teacher Ratio
SCP School Completion Programme
SEP Student Engagement Programme
SER School Effectiveness Research
SIR School Improvement Research
SSE School Self-Evaluation
TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
VTOS Vocational Training Opportunities Scheme
WSE Whole School Evaluation
vii
Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction
The term ‘life-chances’ has long been recognised as referring to a child’s ability to engage
fully in their schooling, and their future ability to participate as competent adults in the
social, economic and political life of society (Field, 2010; Levin, 1975). Research indicates
that a child’s life-chances are shaped by their class and status (Goldson, 2011; McKeown
& Clarke, 2004; DES, 2005; Archer, 2001), but governments seek through educational
policy structures such as Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Disadvantaged Schools
(DEIS), in Ireland; No Child Left Behind, in the US, and Every Child Matters, in the UK, to
assist schools in bridging the gap between home and school (Sternheimer 2010; Smyth,
2012). Educational disadvantage manifests itself in the form of marginalisation and
causes a child to develop a resistance to or to disengage from their schooling. Research
by the Children’s Rights Alliance in 2010, the Economic and Social Research Institute
(ESRI) (2010) and Department of Education and Skills (DES) (2006) has shown that
students experiencing educational disadvantage are more likely to leave school early, be
unemployed, be in low-paid employment, be dependent on the social welfare system and
be less likely to be ‘active citizens’ and become involved in life-long learning.
To alleviate the disadvantage experienced by many Irish students, in 2005 the Irish
Government implemented the DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Disadvantaged
Schools) Action Plan which focuses on addressing the educational needs of children and
young people from disadvantaged communities, from pre-school through second-level
education.
The programme, which is at the centre of this thesis, is based in a school where 70% of
the students in 2005 were classified as educationally disadvantaged by the Department of
Education and Skills; the school was thus given DEIS status. For the purpose of this
thesis this school is named as Glenmore Community School.
Over the past 13 years, I have worked on many educational training initiatives to alleviate
educational disadvantage experienced by students from socio-economically
disadvantaged backgrounds.
Through this practitioner-based research project and through the School Completion
Programme (SCP) strand of the DEIS Action Plan, which aims to have a positive impact
on retention for young people at risk of early school-leaving, I was able to assist Glenmore
Community School in creating the Student Engagement Programme (SEP) in 2009. As
Deputy Principal in the school, I was driven by the desire to enable students to engage
better in their education and in doing so improve their life-chances. Through practitioner-
1