'Out of class?' An investigation into the practice and impact of reduced timetables in inner-city post- primary schools on young people's life course and educational trajectories

Though specific studies on the practice of reduced timetables are limited (Timpson, 2019), international literature on school exclusions generally points to ‘a multiplicity of inter-connected drivers’ (ibid.) underpinning these practices. Research consistently highlights how the intersection of social class, gender, and race/ethnicity, combined with the levels of adversity and disadvantage faced by the ‘hardest to reach’ young people is a strong predictor of school exclusion (OECD, 2016; Timpson, 2019; Cole, et al., 2019; Social Finance, 2020). Absent, however, is a detailed consideration of this practice in an Irish context. This research aims to address this gap by examining the nature and use of reduced timetables in post-primary schools in an inner-city community, and in doing so, add to our understanding of practices of school (dis)engagement and social reproduction in the education system for working-class youth. Drawing on an interpretive qualitative study design, this research provides rich data insights into how reduced timetables are operated procedurally, the rationale for their deployment, the supports available during the practice, and the impact on those affected. To ascertain these insights, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eleven school personnel from the five post-primary schools serving the study area, eleven young people, and ten parents/guardians, who have experience of the practice. Employing Bourdieu’s theories of Social and Cultural Reproduction (1977, 1986, 1990) and Symbolic Violence (1989), and Gramsci’s concept of Hegemony (1971), this study argues that the practice of reduced timetables is just one form of symbolic violence that working-class young people experience in schools, and part of what we term a tripartite of symbolic violence. The practice, it is also argued, may be acting as a mechanism for the ‘deferred elimination’ (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) of working-class youth from school, subject to the rationale for the introduction of the reduced timetable and how it was operationalised procedurally. Additionally, this study proposes that Gramscian Marxism and Bourdieusian sociology are both mutually beneficial and complimentary in conceptualising and analysing the impact of the practice. Findings showed that the practice operated on a continuum, from a mechanism to retain students in school who were at risk of further suspensions or expulsion, and a support mechanism for students with Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) needs or family issues, to a disciplinary sanction, or where a school felt unable to cater for the specific needs of a student within their existing resources. Moreover, when schools, or even individual staff, adopted more trauma-informed approaches (Perry & Daniels, 2016) as part of a ‘caring’ school environment, it positively affected the youth participant’s sense of self (Reay, 2010) and belonging in school, and also helped mitigate the impact of the structural intergenerational trauma in their lives. However, when deployed in the absence of broader systemic supports, or as a behaviour management tool, the practice not only resulted in the formation of damaged learner identities (Reay, 2017) and poorer educational outcomes for those students, but also adversely impacted their self-image and placed them at greater risk of environmental harm(s). Finally, despite the introduction of policy guidance for the practice in 2021, this study contends that this ‘hidden’ practice will remain as a mechanism for working-class social reproduction subject to the individual preferences and practices of school leaders in the absence of more robust monitoring and oversight; a situation this research demonstrates not only results in inequitable outcomes for those affected, but also results in considerable injurious repercussions to lives of working class youth and their families.