Encompassing obligations to children’s welfare and well-being, it is accepted that all schools possess a ‘duty of care’ towards their students. This duty of care plays out in schools through the practice of ‘nurturing pedagogies’ (Gleasure et al., 2024). Drawing on the work of Noddings (2013), such nurturing pedagogies can be conceptualised as the ‘caring actions’ of teachers and other school personnel which arise from their attentiveness to the ‘expressed needs’ of the children under their care.

Although universal, the duty of care falls unevenly across schools, with research highlighting that it is often necessary for teachers in schools serving low-income communities to respond to the material and psychological effects of poverty as a priority (Crean et al., 2023; Moss et al., 2020). Against this backdrop, it has been argued that such schools play a dual role, not only as an education provider, but also as a frontline service for children living in poverty (Crean et al., 2023). 

This dual role aligns with a body of research which suggests two corresponding domains of nurturing in schools serving low-income communities (Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016; Valenzuela, 1999): a domain of ‘academic nurturing,’ centred on  children’s academic progression and success, and a domain of ‘affective nurturing,’ related to children’s welfare and well-being. Research also indicates, however, that teachers in such schools often perceive these forms of nurturing as competing areas of interest, leading them to prioritise one over the other (Antrop-González & De Jesús, 2006; Martin & Amin, 2020). 

Others challenge such binarism, arguing that teachers should uphold the dual role of schools serving low-income communities by simultaneously engaging in both academic nurturing and affective nurturing (Crean et al., 2023; Devine & McGillicuddy, 2016). We build on that argument, characterising such practices as ‘critical nurturing.’ Importantly, critical nurturing is distinct from ‘instrumental’ forms of caring, where affective nurturing practices serve a performative end in children’s academic achievement (Dadvand & Cuervo, 2020; Walls, 2022). Such instrumental practices are especially salient in the context of the increasing emphasis on children’s performance in standardised assessments arising from neo-liberal accountability measures in education systems globally (Devine, 2013). 

Our focus on nurturing pedagogies in schools serving low-income communities is particularly relevant in light of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027 (European Commission, 2018) which underscores the need to pay attention to the risks of socioeconomic exclusion in children’s lives. The Strategy identifies a number ‘European Youth Goals’ which correspond to the nurturing pedagogies within our typology, including mental health and well-being, quality learning, and quality employment for all. 

Here, we present findings from two strands from our research on nurturing pedagogies in primary schools serving low-income communities. First, we consider the nurturing pedagogies evident during Covid-19 school closures, a period during which socioeconomic inequalities in education became particularly pronounced (Crean et al., 2023). The following research questions frame our analysis:

1. To what extent did teachers in disadvantaged schools emphasise academic nurturing and affective nurturing during COVID-19 closures?

2. What variation existed between schools in their enactment of nurturing pedagogies during this period?

3. What school-level factors influenced the enactment of nurturing pedagogies in schools at this time?

Second, we examine primary school children’s perspectives on their experience of nurturing pedagogies, recognising their agency as active co-researchers of their own lives (Donegan et al., 2023; Samanova et al., 2022). Again, our investigation is framed by the following research questions:

1. How do children in disadvantaged schools experience academic nurturing and affective nurturing?

2. How do children perceive the dual role of disadvantaged schools and the tensions associated with critical nurturing?

3. What places, spaces, and people do children associate with care at school?

This research draws on data from Ireland’s national longitudinal study of primary schooling, Children’s School Lives (CSL; www.cslstudy.ie). The study employs a mixed-methods longitudinal cohort design, tracing the experiences of a nationally representative cohort of about 4,000 children in almost 200 schools from 2019 to 2024, along with their parents, grandparents, teachers, principals, and other school personnel. The study also incorporates a sub-sample of thirteen schools in which in-depth ethnographic case studies are conducted each year. In this paper, we draw on data from three such case study schools, purposively selected due to their designated disadvantaged status by the Irish Department of Education. At the time of data collection, two of the selected schools were single-sex, with one serving girls only and the other serving boys only. The third school was co-educational. The study followed appropriate ethical guidelines and was approved by the University ethics committee. The first strand of this paper presents findings from the period of Covid-19 school closures in 2020. During this time, virtual interviews were conducted with 13 adult stakeholders across the three selected case study schools on their experiences of the pandemic and remote learning, as well as their perspectives on children’s engagement and well-being. Stakeholders included teachers, principals, parents, and grandparents. Interview transcripts were inductively coded using MAXQDA software and thematically analysed. The second strand explores children’s perspectives on nurturing pedagogies in the three case study schools using a photovoice methodology, encouraging children’s active participation and agency in the research process. In self-selected ‘friendship groups,’ 49 Second Class children (aged 8 to 9 years) across the three schools were invited to take photographs of places in which they did/did not experience care at school. These photographs served as the basis for subsequent focus group discussions with each friendship group. As before, focus group transcripts were inductively coded using MAXQDA software and thematically analysed.

Findings from both strands of this paper offer important insights for our understanding of nurturing pedagogies in schools serving low-income communities. Our findings indicate that, during the period of Covid-19 closures, universal concern existed across the three case study schools for academic nurturing. This was evidenced in teachers’ encouragement of children and their families to participate in remote learning, the creation of a curriculum hierarchy focused on the ‘core’ subjects, and families’ expressed value for the routine created by remote learning. Such universal concern for academic nurturing challenges perceptions of a pedagogic deficit in schools serving low-income communities. By contrast, our findings reveal differing emphasis on affective nurturing across the three case study schools during this period. Only our co-educational school, with its strong culture of affective nurturing promoted by school leadership, demonstrated practices reflective of critical nurturing as described above. Findings from our photovoice research indicate that children across the three schools perceived their experience of care, as well as the absence thereof, in terms of academic and affective nurturing to varying degrees. In addition, children expressed a clear understanding of the difficulties experienced by their teachers in fulfilling both forms of nurturing simultaneously (what we describe as critical nurturing), with particular emphasis on the time pressures associated with doing so. Finally, children emphasised the importance of the care they experience from their classmates at school, highlighting particular behaviours such as sharing materials and protecting each other from harm.

Antrop-González, R., & De Jesús, A. (2006). Toward a theory of critical care in urban small school reform: Examining structures and pedagogies of caring in two Latino community-based schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 409–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600773148 Crean, M., Devine, D., Moore, B., Martínez Sainz, G., Symonds, J., Sloan, S., & Farrell, E. (2023). Social class, COVID-19 and care: Schools on the front line in Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2023.2174077 Dadvand, B., & Cuervo, H. (2020). Pedagogies of care in performative schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(1), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1486806 Devine, D. (2013). ‘Value’ing children differently? Migrant children in education. Children and Society, 27, 282-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12034 Devine, D., & McGillicuddy, D. (2016). Positioning pedagogy—a matter of children’s rights. Oxford Review of Education, 42(4), 424-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1197111 Donegan, A., Devine, D., Martinez‐Sainz, G., Symonds, J., & Sloan, S. (2023). Children as co‐researchers in pandemic times: Power and participation in the use of digital dialogues with children during the COVID‐19 lockdown. Children & Society, 37(1), 235-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12665 European Commission (2018). European Union Youth Strategy 2019-2027. European Commission. Gleasure, S., Devine, D., Martinez Sainz, G., Sloan, S., Crean, M., Moore, B., & Symonds, J. (2024, forthcoming). “This is where the care can step up”: A typology of nurturing pedagogies in primary schools serving low-income communities during COVID-19 closures. Early Childhood Education Journal. Martin, M., & Amin, N. (2020). Teacher care work in situations of severe deprivation. Pastoral Care in Education, 38(2), 156-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2020.1725906 Moss, G., Allen, R., Bradbury, A., Duncan, S., Harmey, S., & Levy, R. (2020). Primary teachers' experience of the COVID-19 lockdown–Eight key messages for policymakers going forward. UCL Institute of Education. Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press. Samonova, E., Devine, D., & Luttrell, W. (2022). Under the mango Tree: Photovoice with primary school children in rural Sierra Leone. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211053106 Tichnor-Wagner, A., & Allen, D. (2016). Accountable for care: Cultivating caring school communities in urban high schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(4), 406- 447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1181185 Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: Issues of caring in education of US-Mexican youth. State University of New York Press. Walls, J. (2022). Performativity and caring in education: Toward an ethic of reimagination. Journal of School Leadership, 32(3), 289-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684620972065