The ensuing thesis is the result of an in-depth interrogation of the following research question: What are the school experiences of LGBT youth? Despite much research on homophobic bullying in school, little is known about how power intersects and prolongs a bullying event after the initial victimization is over. This study sheds a light on this issue, examining how LGBT youth understand bullying, their capacity within individual events, while uncovering how power shapes a bullying incident. The first part of the thesis forms the central argument demonstrating key principles underpinning challenges sexual minority youth face while at school. Interrogating political and neoliberal influences, this thesis introduces young people’s stories through multiple lenses. This thesis uncovers schools ineffectual use of inclusion policy revealing policy and practice are failing young people. Furthermore, LGBT young people’s human rights are also largely overlooked in policy practice. Not treated as having the same rights as other students interferes with their education, and therefore, their human rights. The first two chapters are grounded in present literature as demonstrated in chapter three, which is followed by methodologies in chapter four, rounding out the first section. Chapters five through seven establish the second part of this thesis. Here the reader is introduced to young people’s accounts unpacking bullying incidents. Introducing critical incidents revealed through narrative inquiry, leads to an interrogation of bullying and how power punctuates, intersecting a single event. Chapter eight concludes this thesis. Up to thirty young people participated in sessions, ranging in ages from sixteen to nineteen. Eighteen filled out a questionnaire, while surveys ranged from eight to seventeen participants. Eighteen participated with the one-to-one interview lasting from 30 to 60 minutes. Interviews revealed all young people had experienced bullying at school while several were severely physically bullied and harmed. Girls reported experiencing and identifying bullying differently than boys, while boys reported struggling with homophobic bullying representing their lost male privilege suggesting girls and boys experienced, perceived and defined bullying and power differently. Results revealed not everything defined as bullying, is understood as such. Additionally,
power exerted onto the victim during a bullying incident came from multiple sources. First, it came from the initial attacker then moved to the teacher attempting to resolve the incident, and then to the administration. How they interrogated bullying informed and prolonged a bullying incident long after the initial event ceased. This thesis will reveal how bullying is understood and addressed in schools is ineffective due to its universal ideology considering all experience as the same, and is faulty.

The aims of this study were twofold and integrated. The first was to explore whether Hans Asperger’s expression ‘autistic intelligence’ was a valid and possibly helpful concept to educators. The second was to discover whether this theorised cognitive style could be accommodated within an inclusive education framework. Four students on the autism spectrum, in mainstream schools, their parents and their teachers were interviewed in a case-study approach, to analyse their beliefs and understandings about autism. Data analysis showed that parents and students in particular believed autism to involve a recognisable cognitive style. It tended, they said, to have sensory elements which impacted upon engagement and learning, and appeared to give rise to some social difficulties. These in turn were thought to impact upon the emotional wellbeing of students on the autism spectrum. Significant bullying and exclusion of these students was reported. They recognised their ‘difference’ from their peers and attempted to negotiate that difference. However, teachers tended to reject the concept of ‘labelling’ these students. These findings in part reflect developing current theoretical and cognitive neuroscience consensus supporting a theorised Local Processing Bias as perhaps being a key element in defining core characteristics of autism. Additionally the research showed that the inclusive framework was perceived to be failing these students in many ways. In particular, the difficulties in obtaining educational help and support were believed, by students and their parents, to be obstructive. Another area of concern was the use of teaching assistants as the main educational intervention offered. The inclusive framework, according to these stakeholders, appears to have little recognition of or accommodation for what might be called autistic intelligence. Yet this might possibly be accomplished by making some environmental adaptations. The concept of autistic intelligence, with its theorised perceptual bias, might be useful in considering the nature of any adaptations.

This study analyses ‘Gifted and Talented’ (‘G&T’) identities in post-16 education, exploring ‘G&T’ identity construction processes and how students manage ‘G&T’ identities once labelled as such. Bourdieu’s work, social constructionism and identity theorising are used to analyse how ‘G&T’ labelling processes, arising from government policies, located within family, peer and school institutional cultures impact on students’ identities, and their responses to identification. Constructionist critical-realist epistemology is used, with data drawn from semi-structured interviews conducted with 16 post-16 students; 16 e-mailed questionnaires with their parents; and three e-mailed questionnaires with GATCOs (‘G&T’ Co-ordinators), from three schools in Eastern England. Eight follow-up informal couple-interviews were conducted with students and their parents. My data analysis of ‘G&T’-students’ subjectivities shows ‘G&T’ identification has repercussions affecting self-esteem, confidence levels, and other aspects of identity constructions. I identify varied ways in which ‘G&T’ post-16 students actively construct ‘G&T’ identities in family and school cultural contexts, using peer-subcultures to manage ‘G&T’ roles, and show how school institutions differ in ‘G&T’ emphasis. Students display agency in ‘choosing’ routes through their ‘G&T’-journeys, on a continuum ranging from ‘conformity’ through to ‘resistance’. Through my analysis of rich qualitative data, some consequences for students of ‘G&T’-identity construction are revealed to be: fear-of-failure, perfectionism, bullying, eating disorders, stress; as well as confidence, pride, motivation and satisfaction. I argue that what is constructed and identified as ‘G&T’ is the result of social class based cultural capital, as the middle-classes access ‘G&T’ provision disproportionately. I conclude that ‘G&T’ policies function as neoliberal educational differentiators, in further separating the advantaged from the disadvantaged, entrenching class divisions. Recommendations include inclusive, personalised provision for all students. Students, parents and teachers revealed how differentiation within classrooms is as necessary as provision allowing for meeting the ‘like-minded’ e.g. through vertical tutoring, leadership programmes and establishing ‘learning communities’ within schools. I argue that school and family cultures need to ‘scaffold’ developing identities of post-16 students ensuring their potential is reached in academic, confidence and identity domains. The label of ‘G&T’ is not needed in order to achieve these aims of ‘gifted’ education for all students to at least sometimes feel like they are ‘fish in water’.