140
TA ACTON
don't grow up like their parents" as many an insensitive teacher has put it.) Finally, as concern for the number of sited Gypsies forced onto social security has grown, there has been a little thought for the economy of the Gypsies, shown in such measures as the provision of work areas for scrap metal.
Between these two situations, then, we can see a structural reversal of policy priorities of stunning simplicity. For the Hong Kong Shui-sheung-yan it was economic policies first, educational policies second, and housing and life-style third. For the British Gypsies it was housing and life-style first, education second, and economic policies a poor third.
This, incidentally, gives us a possible resolution of the paradox of changing views of ethnicity that we noted on page 126. The Hong Kong Government had an economic problem; contrary to its expectations from the literature, it found it was dealing with an occupational group of fishermen, and not an ethnic group. The British Government had a problem of a clash of life-styles in housing; contrary to its expectations from the literature it found it had an ethnic group to deal with and not merely an occupational group of scrap-dealers and seasonal farm labourers. Ethnic reality, like all other reality, is socially constructed. It almost makes one believe that there might be something in the old metaphor of base and superstructure.
Beneath these structural differences, however, the fabric of the situation is the same. In both cases we are dealing with pariah groups seeking a way out of their pariah status, but still somewhat occupationally, socially and to some extent culturally distinct. Both are linguistically differentiated by the possession of special vocabulary rather than of a completely different language. Both groups have been coming closer to the general community, and both are the objects of general government policies of integration. The same practical difficulties may come up in the classroom. Perhaps the British experiments are marginally more innovative in administration, if not in curriculum; but they remain experiments, very patchily implemented. The administrators of the F.M.O. schools (there are only three administrative staff for the whole system) have to run a very tight ship, but they do so with great dedication and enthusiasm, and since their education policy is rooted in economic concern, have been able to pursue it with much greater vigour and success than British Gypsy education policy, this would seem, then, to be a case when educational policy does make a difference; at least, when there is a difference waiting to be made.
140
TA ACTON
don't grow up like their parents" as many an insensitive teacher has put it.) Finally, as concern for the number of sited Gypsies forced onto social security has grown, there has been a little thought for the economy of the Gypsies, shown in such measures as the provision of work areas for scrap metal.
Between these two situations, then, we can see a structural reversal of policy priorities of stunning simplicity. For the Hong Kong Shui- sheung-yan it was economic policies first, educational policies second, and housing and life-style third. For the British Gysies it was housing and life-style first, education second, and economic policies a poor third.
This, incidentally, gives us a possible resolution of the paradox of changing views of ethnicity that we noted on page 126. The Hong Kong Government had an economic problem; contrary to its expectations from the literature, it found it was dealing with an occupational group of fishermen, and not an ethnic group. The British Government had a problem of a clash of life-styles in housing; contrary to its expectations from the literature it found it had an ethnic group to deal with and not merely an occupational group of scrap-dealers and seasonal farm labourers. Ethnic reality, like all other reality, is socially constructed. It almost makes one believe that there might be something in the old metaphor of base and superstructure.
Beneath these structural differences, however, the fabric of the situation is the same. In both cases we are dealing with pariah groups seeking a way out of their pariah status, but still somewhat occupation- ally, socially and to some extent culturally distinct. Both are linguist- ically differentiated by the possession of special vocabulary rather than of a completely different language. Both groups have been coming closer to the general community, and both are the objects of general govern- ment policies of integration. The same practical difficulties may come up in the classroom. Perhaps the British experiments are marginally more innovative in administration, if not in curriculum; but they re- main experiments, very patchily implemented. The administrators of the F.M.O. schools (there are only three administrative staff for the whole system) have to run a very tight ship, but they do so with great dedication and enthusiasm, and since their education policy is rooted in economic concern, have been able to pursue it with much greater vigour and success than British Gypsy education policy, this would seem, then, to be a case when educational policy does make a difference; at least, when there is a difference waiting to be made.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.