The majority of the staff stressed the fact that the school had changed considerably because of the vision the Head Master had for the school; without saying whether this is positive or negative, they admit that the school now largely represented the socioeconomic background that the Head Master came from: affluent, white, and middle class. This change over the last ten years, both of the school and Mawerley, was a recurring theme in my discussions with pupils and staff. A large number of staff who had been at the school for a number of years
suggested that when they first joined, the school was not a pleasant school to work in. As the Director of Studies, Mr Evans, noted:
I was surprised when I arrived here about the level of expectations from the staff on the pupils. I think the expectations of the kids was lower than it should have been. Part of that reason was that, I think, the standard behaviour was nowhere near as it is now. So, I think a number of staff were spending more time trying to bring discipline and less time teaching.
When I first started, the school was rough. It was a rough school. And it was very mixed. Of course, now it is an easy school to teach in. I don't know whether it will change […] I just remember that at the time it was rough. So, it wasn't a school I enjoyed teaching to start with.
Implicitly, Mr Evans almost suggests that the changing cohort of students has resulted in better results, a better environment and has turned the school into the successful institution it is today. The fact that the school is described as rough was interesting. Issues of discipline or lower academic results acquire a very nuanced interpretation as the blame is attributed almost mostly to pupils. It is interesting that the fact that this used to be a boys’ school until the 1990s was not mentioned. To my mind, a school full of adolescent boys can be a challenging environment to teach in. Instead, there was an implicit suggestion that perhaps the fact that the school now attracts middle-class, white pupils is positive for the school. A similar idea of well-behaved pupils resulting from socioeconomic background seemed to be shared by the students. During a focus group with Upper Sixth pupils, from a History class, I asked students if they believed their experience at the school was somewhat different to state schools.
Alex: It is not guaranteed but there is up to a certain point the stereotype that people who go to private schools are sort of more polite, sort of more mannered, maybe more respectful in a way, but it is not guaranteed.
George: This is a stereotype.
Alex: I know I sound really bad.
As the participants in the focus group laughed nervously, I felt that even though this was a stereotype, most of them nodded in agreement. Even though good behaviour among certain people was criticised as a stereotype, it could be argued that stereotypes can be ingrained in everyday understandings and influence which behaviours people value as more constructive. Even the fact that Alex mentioned that he sounded bad, showed that perhaps he did not in reality feel bad but maybe expressing this idea was not acceptable. The discussion continued with my prompting the participants to elaborate on what Alex said.
Emily: I think it has a lot more to do with upbringing.
George: Yeah, it’s not the school that made us. It’s the class that we come from.
Henry: There is a lot of respect between pupils and teachers which you may not find at state schools. Then this means that you are polite to your teachers naturally, because you respect what they do.
The idea that family and social background are at the foreground of what shapes one’s outlook was mentioned throughout my interviews with pupils. It was perhaps this upbringing, affluent and white, which had the potential to pathologise those who were different; and had for example, created the image of
the private school as a place for respectful behaviour whereas state schools were more likely to perpetuate unruly behaviour. The fact that the pupils did not consider the school to be the cradle underpinning their behaviours and ideas reinforces the main focus of this study, the idea that total locales: family, school, and locality, all mirroring each other can be seminal in the construction of identities.
An example which can showcase how pupils at St Aber’s can be contrasted with those from a different upbringing comes from the fact that the majority of them had to engage with school activities not only until very late in the day but also at the weekend (Open Days, prefect meetings, practicing sports or doing rehearsals, etc.). Pupils saw that as normal and none of them expressed complaints about the hours they had to spend engaged in activities. It might have been the appeal that being involved in various activities can enhance one’s CV, which was enough to provide motivation and convince them to sacrifice their free time in favour of school activities. Harry one of the prefects, for example, during an Open Day on a Saturday, described it as a privilege to be there rather than complain about his being at the school at the weekend. Contrastingly, Nayak (2003) talks about the Charvers, the name given to young people in the North West of England, a group of kids living in poverty and prone to criminal activities. They described the freedoms they were given from their parents, giving examples of how their parents would give them alcohol and cigarettes. They were taking pride in this and this talk allowed them to show their toughness, despite their young age. Even though they had to legally attend school, scholastic aspiration was not in their agenda. Therefore, their freedoms were categorised as the wrong kinds of liberties; liberties which would not lead to what is perceived as normative professional or academic success. For instance, they would not be able to capitalise on any of their activities that they associated with being free. As Nayak (ibid.: 89) describes it ‘many of these activities were viewed as “beyond the pale” of accepted behaviour […] and so compounded Charver status as inhuman, far from innocent, “not-quite-white”.
These experiences demonstrate the double-edged nature of the “freedoms” and “liberties” available to them and the freedoms and restrictions imposed on St Aber’s pupils.