(Inter)national empirical findings repeatedly prove that socioeconomic status as well as contextual factors at the level of the learning group, the school, and the social space are decisive for educational opportunities (e.g., OECD, 2019). Schools serving disadvantaged communities often show higher teacher turnover and greater difficulties in attracting qualified teachers and school leaders than schools working in more favourable conditions (e.g., Allen & McInerney, 2019; Simon & Johnson, 2015; Clotfelder, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2007). Furthermore, they often have less improvement capacity which might also lead to even greater disadvantages of marginalized students. Focussing on schools serving disadvantaged communities, Beckmann and colleagues (2022) found out that schools showing little school improvement capacity were less able to find flexible solutions conducive to learning and well-being during distance learning in the period of the Covid-19-pandemic.

The findings presented above raise questions about equity in education. In recent years there has been a growing interest in schools serving disadvantaged communities and effective measures to support them. Based on a literature review, Muijs et al. (2010) identified themes and measures that seem to be crucial for the improvement of these schools, including leadership, building a learning community, continuous professional development, a focus on teaching and learning, creating an information-rich environment and a positive school culture, and involving parents. The listing also included external support and resources, pointing at the central role of school authorities. However, to date there is no clear definition of “a school serving disadvantaged communities” and various other terms are used in the literature in order to address these schools, for example schools in deprived areas or schools in challenging circumstances. Approaches such as calculating social indices use available data for identifying these schools. In various educational systems social indices are also used to implement equity funding policies. Following this approach, schools serving disadvantaged communities can receive additional staff, funding, or further support. This might be an effective way to reduce educational inequalities and to create equal life opportunities. According to Verelst, Bakelants, Vandevoort, & Nicaise (2020), more than half of EU countries currently provide some type of equity funding to schools that serve target groups such as low-SES students or children with a migration background.

Nevertheless, labeling schools might contribute to stigmatization, external attribution or neglecting the challenges schools are facing (e.g., Berkemeyer, 2017). Using statewide high school data from Michigan, Saw and colleagues (2017) found that high schools responded differently to diverse forms of labeling as low performing. Furthermore, little is known whether there is common sense when it comes to defining schools serving disadvantaged communities. Whereas some schools in deprived areas are seen as failing schools, other schools in comparable contexts have a good reputation and manage to achieve high enrolment figures, but the reasons for these findings remain unclear.

This led to the following research questions:

RQ1: How are schools serving disadvantaged communities perceived by the public and school authorities/superintendents?

RQ2: How do schools serving disadvantaged communities perceive themselves? What challenges do they perceive and where do they see need for further support?

RQ3: What commonalities and differences can be found between the self-perceptions of schools and the perceptions by others?

We conducted a mixed-methods study to analyze and contrast self-perceptions of schools in deprived areas on the one hand and perceptions by others on the other hand. Four schools located in one municipality in the Ruhr region in the German federated state of North Rhine-Westphalia were selected for the analyses. This urban region is characterized by a high degree of unemployment, low purchasing power, and an above-average proportion of citizens having a migration background. Two primary schools and two comprehensive schools were chosen, all of which having a high school social index, indicating a high proportion of socio-economically disadvantaged students and/or students having a migration background. We used school statistics to realize a contrastive approach: One school per school type showing high enrollment was chosen as well as one school with rather low popularity. To capture the perceptions by others we conducted a media analysis. Using the archives of two local newspapers, all articles between 2014 and 2024 dealing with the relevant schools in the case study municipality were collected, resulting in a data corpus of almost 300 articles. Additionally, we retrieved Google reviews of these schools. Using content analysis (Mayring, 2007) and taking into account models of school quality and school effectiveness (e.g., Scheerens & Boskers, 1997), we carved out aspects that were addressed in the data. The code system was developed both deductively and inductively and the software MAXQDA 24 (https://www.maxqda.com/) was used. A high degree of communicative validation ensured the quality of the analyses. Moreover, interviews with superintendents/school authorities were conducted, focusing on their understandings of schools in deprived areas and possible ways of supporting schools serving marginalized communities in general and their perceptions of the schools taking part in the study in particular. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. To capture the self-perceptions of the schools we conducted group discussions within the four schools; taking into account different perspectives and professions (school leaders, teachers, special needs teachers, social workers, parents, students). The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using content analysis, relevant parts of the conversations were also analyzed by means of in-depth interpretation (i.e., documentary interpretation, e.g., Nohl, 2010).

The results indicate that the four schools selected for the study are perceived in very different ways by the media and the school supervisory authorities, despite being comparable in terms of the socioeconomic background of their students. One primary school seems to be largely neglected in the press, while the other elementary school was represented in newspaper articles to a far greater extent, for example in the context of projects and extracurricular activities. One of the comprehensive schools is portrayed as an organization focusing on participation and a democratic and culturally responsive school culture. On the contrast, the other comprehensive school is faced with a persistent bad reputation, which also includes indications of violent behavior. For this school in particular, striking differences between the picture presented in the media and the self-perception can be observed. In the group discussion school members pointed to the challenges their students are facing, but they put greater emphasis on their potentials and commitment. Interviewees also highlighted the fruitful collaboration among colleagues and the solidarity within the school. However, they also perceived stigmatization and negative effects of an unfavorable representation in the media. They reported various efforts to counteract the negative reputation, for example partnerships and a focus on students’ health, but also mentioned that these efforts had not been effective. Our findings show the uniqueness of schools and stress the importance of school improvement activities and further support for schools serving disadvantaged communities. They also illustrate possible negative consequences of labelling schools as deprived or low-achieving. Therefore, strategies at different levels (national and local policy level, school level) are needed in order to support schools struggling with image issues to improve urban education and opportunities for children and youth at risk.

Allen, B. & McInerney, L. (2019). The Recruitment Gap. Attracting Teachers to Schools Serving Disadvantaged Communities. London: The Sutton Trust. https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Recruitment-Gap.pdf Beckmann, L., Kötter-Mathes, S., Klein, E. D., Bremm, N., & Ackeren, I. van (2022). Schools’ Improvement Capacity and Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Schools Serving Disadvantaged Communities. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1008813 Berkemeyer, N. (2017). „Herausfordernde soziale Lagen“. Eine unzureichende Problemanalyse für die Steuerung des Schulsystems und seiner Unterstützungssysteme [„Challenging Circumstances“. An Insufficient Problem Analysis for the Management of the School System and Its Support Structures]. In V. Manitius & P. Dobbelstein (Eds.), Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Lagen [School Improvement in Schools Serving Disadvantaged Communities] (pp. 297–319). Münster: Waxmann. Clotfelder, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L. & Wheeler, J. (2007). High Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1345–1379. Mayring, P. (2007). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative Content Analysis. Foundations and Techniques] (9th ed.). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving Schools in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas – A Review of Research Evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15 (2), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.15.2.149.30433 Nohl, A.-M. (2010). Narrative Interview and Documentary Interpretation. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Educational Research (pp. 195–217). Opladen: Budrich. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-317517 OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed. Paris: OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en Saw, G., Schneider, B.; Frank, K., Chen, I.-C., Keesler, V., & Martineau, J. (2017). The Impact of Being Labeled as a Persistently Lowest Achieving School: Regression Discontinuity Evidence on Consequential School Labeling. American Journal of Education, 123 (4). 585–613. Scheerens, J. & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The Foundations of Educational Effectiveness. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Simon, N. & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher Turnover in High Poverty Schools. What We Know and Can Do. Teachers College Record, 117 (3), 1–36.