Youth, Social Communities and Educational Challenges

1. Youth, Social Communities and Educational Challenges Theoreticalframing and preliminaryfindings Vibe Larsen & Tekla Canger ECER Porto 2014

2. Project Background • Interest - to study youth , social communitiesand social processes in relation to educational • Youth and education - an increasingly large part of the debate in Danish media and on the political scene. • Education - the answer to problems in society, and equally a necessity for desired positions on the job market • Those who do not accomplish – excluded from education and from job market - marginalized in society as such • Our ambition – to focus on the importance of social life, community and social learning

3. State of the art • The research in youth and education shows: • That social relations matter in relation to taking part in education – for some the social relations become their primary reason for engaging in education. (Lasgaard 2006, Ingholt 2007, Christoffersen 2014) • That part of the youth experience long-term problems due to complicated social relations with peers (Lasgaard 2006, Ingholt 2007) • That part of the youth produce a fear of social exclusion during school – including those who define social life ( Søndergaard 2013, Caldwell and Wentzel 1997) • That the social level and the academic level is strongly connected and provide different possibilities for participation and positions in the social processes ( Caldwell and Wentzel 1997; Christoffersen 2014)

4. Research Questions • Which social networks and communities are the young people in question part of? How are they spoken of and how are they valued by professionals and by the young people themselves? • How do professionals, institutions, pedagogical practices and the surrounding community support or complicate the social networks and communities of the youth? • Which meaning is the communities given by the youth in relation to an understanding of being included or excluded of education and schooling?

5. TheoreticalFraming The project is inspired by • Lave and Wenger and their Communities of Practice (Lave & Wenger 2002) • Social Learning Theory (Wenger2006) • The distinction between communities, groups and networks as understood by Baumann and Ingholt (Baumann 2002; Ingholt 2007) • Broady and Putnams concepts of social capital (Broady 2002 ; Putnam 2002)

6. Methodology • An ethnographic approach - study the youth in their environment • Micro-sociology - the mechanisms that apparently add to experiences of inclusion and exclusion • Use of different methods such as interviews, fieldwork and observations

7. Data Collection Three phases: a pre-study, the main study and an intervention involving teachers and other professionals • The pre-study: to uncover points of attentionfor the mainstudy • The mainstudy • 4-6 weeks of field work in a graduating class in an urban school • 10 student interviews and 2 teacher interviews • Field work in the surrounding youth after school clubs and interviews with social workers, pedagogues and other professionals surrounding the youth in question • The intervention study: thinktechnologies and learning labs with professionals

8. Characteristics of the class • Mainly consisting of girls • The class is a fusion of two different classes – the fusion took place in the 7th grade • A large degree of pupils stopping and starting • Same team of homeroom teachers from the 7th grade • Agewise there is a span of 2-3 years – from 15 to 17-year old pupils • All pupils have minority background characterized by a large variety in the origins of the parents

9. Center-Periphery – definingclassculture • Center is defined as the group around which ’the others’ attach or detach themselves • Periphery is defined as the groups with a peripheric or no relationship with the center group – in part positions themselves in opposition to the center group • Depending on whether or not one belongs to center or periphery – class culture is understood differently: • Pupils belonging to center sees the class environment as well functioning and inclusive • Pupils belonging to periphery sees the class environment as exclusive and defined by a culture they have a hard time seeing themselves as part of

10. ”Wedon’texcludenoone” I always hung out with Marjana and Fatima – we were this small group. But now it’s – I think it’s the whole class and not just me – we are more together… in very large groups – I mean; we don’t exclude noone […] I like the class as a whole because we stick together and don’t exclude noone” (Interview with girl from the center group)

11. ”Sometimeswefeelthat the classhatesus” I know it isn’t just me, because sometimes I’ve talked with Milla about it. Sometimes we just feel that the class hates us. - I don’t know if it’s only us, it’s like a feeling – but sometimes it’s also the way they look at us – and sometimes you’re used to them saying ’hi’ and then you go past them and they completely ignore you […] sometimes you just don’t want to be in that class because you feel that they hate you – it doesn’t feel nice to be in there […] sometimes they’re really nice to you and the next day they ignore you (interview with girl for one of the peripheric groups)

12. Inclusion and exclusion • If belonging to the center group - that has the power to define the culture of the classroom – the social environment seems inclusive • If belonging to a group on the periphery, the understanding is that it is a class where insecurity rules – not knowing whether one is ‘in’ or ‘out’ in turn makes schooling an insecure project.

13. The Class Dynamics • A large center-group and a couple of periphericgroupssurrounding the center group • Breaks as well as lessonscharacterized by the culturecreated by the center group – noisy and lively and – to a certainextent – blunt in theirbehaviour • Characterized by ’wanderings’ in and out of the classroom

14. ”He cankeep on asking, but they never shut up” And I just think that it is so noisy and they don’t respect anyone. The other school was like this: when the teacher said ’be quiet’ we would be all quiet and then we would do what we had to. So I am not used to the noise. Jonathan can sometimes say: ’be quiet, be quiet and again be quiet’ and he can keep on asking but they never shut up (interview with girl from one of the peripheric groups)

15. ’Damnedifyou do –damnedifyoudon’t’ • The classenvironmentdefined by the center group and experienced by one from one of the periphericgroup • Opposing the classcultureequalsrisk of exclusion • Accepting the classcultureequalspossiblelack of schooloutcome

16. Movements • Heavy traffic in and out the classroom • Moving from oneclassroom to another – whomoves and whodoes not? • Largergroupsgoing out of the schoolarea • Movingbetweendifferentrooms on the schoolpremises • Movingaround in the localcommunity • Movementdepends on position in the social group - excludessome, and includesothers, but alsoproducespossibilities for new relations and groups.

17. Movements

19. Movements

20. The Local Community

21. The Local Community • The schoolis a localschool • The knowledge of the neighborhood • ”Lottoparken” as a central part of the narratives • The belongings and stronger relations areproducedthrough narratives of growing up together or through the imagination of commonethnic or social background • It constructsverticalnetworkswhicharecharacterized by more profound relations and more excluding relations.

22. Concluding Remarks • The positions of center and periphery is important in relation to feeling included or excluded; and that these positions are complex and change over time and dependent on context. • The teachers’ role in maintaining and supporting the social life of the class is ambivalent – the teachers are aware of their role and function, but at the same time have very few tools in order to administer that task. • The movements that take place through what we name ’wanderings’, are central in relation to understanding some the processes that are co-constructing the relations of the youth.