Education: When government is more hindrance than help

EDUCATION FOR TRAVELLERS
Guest post by Revd. Adrian Brook, Chaplain to Gypsies, Travellers and Showmen in the Diocese of Salisbury

Historically Travellers had little or no schooling partly because of their nomadic lifestyle and partly because they could not see a need for it. In more recent times however it has been recognised that a basic education has value but there is still an underlying reluctance for most Traveller parents to send their children to school. The reasons for this are varied and complex but one underlying factor is that schooling invariably erodes cultural identity.

The fact that Gypsy, Roma and children of Irish Traveller heritage (GRT) are the lowest achieving ethnic group is well documented. This has been recognised by successive governments who have tried to address this problem by various strategies and means but have met with limited success.

Read comments from the Ministerial Working Group report on tackling inequalities experienced by GRT children:

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/inclusionandlearnersupport/mea/improvingachievement/a0012528/gypsy,-roma-and-traveller-achievement

The measures outlined address some of the areas that are contributing factors towards underachievement but all focus on regular attendance at school as the solution. This is not a realistic solution for groups with nomadic lifestyles.  Recent government proposals to scrap clause 6 of section 444 of the Education Act 1996 will compound this problem further and has caused a lot of concern among Travellers as well as professional bodies involved in Traveller education. The Traveller Education Support Service provided by the Dorset Education Authority has also been scrapped which will have a particularly damaging effect on children whose parents work on travelling funfairs.

A delegation from the Showmen’s Guild recently met with Michael Gove MP, The Education Secretary, to express their concerns about the proposed changes to section 444(6).

Distance learning has proved to be the most successful strategy for Traveller schooling particularly for those with a nomadic lifestyle, unfortunately support in this area has also been withdrawn.

See statement from the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers:

http://www.travellerstimes.org.uk/blog.aspx?n=0936f8cf-beab-42e9-a4f9-0ff01a1b7ec7&h=False&c=f1b1c82c-0f3c-4edf-98cd-502ea80ed8fa&

Through my own experience and studies I feel that a well-resourced distance learning facility would enable GRT to have an education such that it would allow them as a minority group to maintain their distinctiveness but be able to operate within the majority society with an equal capability.

With today’s communication IT and media it would be possible to provide schooling through virtual tutors which would overcome difficulties related to attendance and continuity. There are a growing number of distance learning providers and ‘virtual academies’ but they are expensive to use and tend to be in specialist areas.  STETS, in our own diocese, relies heavily on distance learning.

Distance learning requires the pupil to be motivated and should ideally involve the whole family. This could be tackled by using a non-curriculum based approach such as the Learn to Live programme which has been successfully piloted by Devon County Council. It has worked particularly well with pupils facing exclusion.  Learn to Live is a person centred approach that relies on personal and corporate advocacy. See link:

http://www.ellen-tinkham.org.uk/LearntoLive.html

As I see it there are two possibilities by which the programme could be delivered to Traveller pupils.

• ·         As a Free School or virtual academy with which the pupil is registered. This has the advantage that it would qualify for government funding plus schools could buy a place for an excluded pupil as it would be an ‘alternative provider’ Thus it would be self-funding. It would also overcome the problems posed by the proposed abolition of section 444 (6)

• ·         As a body to resource Home Education.  This would be easier in some ways and would also get around the section 444(6) problem, but it may be more difficult to fund.

This is a very brief resume of the idea but I hope it can be given serious consideration.