1. Ethnicity and education
LO: Critically assess to what degree ethnic background can impact academic achievement
Ethnicity & Education

2. Ethnicity and Educational Achievement: Relevant Data

3. The Swann Report Swann Report in 1985 reported the following facts:
West Indian children do worse than many other ethnic group in education (only 5% passed an A level and 1% went to University).
Asian children in general do as well as white children (except in English language).
Children of Bangladeshi origin do worse than any other minority group (including West Indian children).
It is wrong to generalise and say all children of ethnic minority origin do badly at school as there are considerable variations across gender and class.

4. Reasons for relatively poor performance of ethnic minority children
Low IQ – e.g. Eysenck has suggested that West Indian children have a lower IQ than others. The Swann report could find no evidence of this.
Material deprivation – the majority of ethnic minority groups are working class and their children experience the same material disadvantage of other working class children.
Hidden curriculum – culturally and linguistically biased against ethnic minority groups.
Labelling – teachers tend to stereotype ethnic minority students and attach negative labels which become self fulfilling prophecies.
Racism – racism in wider society diminishes self esteem. The school can be seen as representative of the Dominant culture and is therefore rejected.

5. Modhood et al 1997
In a study by the Policy Studies Institute in 1997 Modhood et al found the following patterns in educational achievement:
Chinese, African Asians and Indian groups were more qualified than whites.
Ethnic minorities were more likely to stay on in education after 16 than whites

6. Modhood et al 1997
Bangladeshi and Pakistani women were the least well qualified of all female groups and Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean men were the least well qualified of all male ethnic groups.
Afro-Caribbean boys are more likely to be excluded from school and placed in lower streams than any other ethnic groups.
It is important to remember that these are average statistics and therefore individual students can go against the trend of their respective ethnic groupings

7. Inside School factors Coard 1971
Coard found evidence of low self esteem amongst ethnic minorities.
He believed that schools made ethnic minorities ‘feel inferior in every way’.
Black people and their achievements are ignored in the curriculum, ‘white’ is associated with good and ‘black’ with evil.
This all led to low self esteem for ethnic minorities.
However this study is over 30years old and other researchers have argued that things have much improved.
Ethnicity & Education

8. Commission For Racial Equality 1988
Inside School factors
Commission For Racial Equality 1988
In a study at a school they called ‘Jayleigh’ the CRE found that teacher assessment meant that white pupils were entered for a greater number of GCSE’s than Asian students.
Also, more Asian students were placed in lower sets throughout their school careers. However this study is over 30years old and other researchers have argued that things have much improved.

9. Inside School factors Gillborn 1990
Gillborn found that labelling played a significant part in the performance of different minority groups.
Teachers had different expectations of different ethnic groups and particularly saw black males as more ‘trouble’

10. Inside School factors Gillborn 1990
They were the ones more likely to challenge authority and consequently more likely to be thrown out of lessons and ultimately excluded from school.
Gillborn called this the ‘myth of the black challenge’ and the labelling led to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
However this study is over 20 years old and other researchers have argued that things have much improved.

11. Gillborn and Youdell (2000)
Inside School factors
Gillborn and Youdell (2000)
Teachers tended to have different perceptions of non-white children and, consequently, tended to treat them differently.
Teachers are more likely to define non-white children as being “a problem”.
-Unintentional racism
- “difficult” or “uncooperative” pupils are more likely to be Excluded from school:
1991: Afro-Caribbean’s made up 8% of school exclusions whilst constituting 2% of the school population.
Ethnic minorities are more likely to experience frustration with racism and poverty and consequently display behavioural problems in the classroom.

12. Inside School factors Wright 1992
Wright found evidence of institutional racism in the policies and attitudes of education.
Even though teachers in her study were committed to equal opportunities they gave less attention to Asian girls
(particularly in class discussions where wrong assumptions were made about their English not ‘being good enough’)
...and punished Afro-Caribbean boys more and sent them out of class.

13. Inside School factors Mason 1995
Mason says that education is not ‘racist’ but it is ethnocentric (i.e. showing an ignorance and disregard for other cultures)
consequently non white cultures are not promoted despite the modern emphasis on ‘multi-culturalism’

14. The ethnocentric curriculum
Inside School factors
The ethnocentric curriculum
An ethnocentric curriculum is a school syllabus that has been designed for the dominant culture and forgets the cultures of ethnic minorities.
Miriam David (1993) & Stephen Ball (1994)
National Curriculum as ‘specifically British’.
Curriculum that teaches the culture of the ‘host community’.
Promoting an attitude of ‘little Englandism’
ignores the history of black and Asian people through absence of literature, history and music curriculum.

15. Inside School factors Mirza 1992
Mirza found that negative labelling did not necessarily lead to low self esteem for ethnic minority students.
She found that black girls had positive self images and high aspirations.
Some teachers were well meaning but paradoxically held back black girls by over compensating for them and not pushing them enough (“the liberal chauvinist“).

16. Inside School factors Mac & Ghaill 1992
‘Negative labels do not automatically turn into self-fulfilling prophecies’. Girls channeled their anger about being labelled into the pursuit of educational success.
25 Afro-Caribbean & Asian A level students  found that all had experienced some problems due to racism in school but had adopted ‘survival strategies’ to deal with them.
They avoided teachers with particular reputations, kept their heads down in some lessons and confided in other teachers whom they trusted. The most successful students were the ones who learnt to steer themselves through these obstacles.

17. Outside School factors Swann Report 1985
This report found that social and economic factors were the most important explanations for some ethnic minority groups failing in education.
Levels of poverty, standards of housing and parental involvement were far more important than any IQ differences.

18. Outside School factors Driver and Ballard (1981)- Language
Found that Asian children whose first language was not English were as good at English as their class mates by the age of 16.
Labelling theorists have argued that accent rather than language has influenced teacher expectations and lead to negative labeling.
Also European languages are seen as superior to non European languages, French and German are given a higher status than Chinese or Gujarati.

19. Outside School factors Cultural Deprivation
As with social class, cultural deprivation (the idea that working class and ethnic minorities are deprived of the values needed for school success) has been cited as a reason for the failure of some ethnic minorities.
However, Pryce attacked this in 1979 and stated that many Afro-Caribbean parents did take a large interest in their children’s education and sent them to extra schooling sessions on Saturday mornings

20. Outside School factors Smith And Tomlinson 1989
Argue that social class background of pupils was more important than ethnicity in explaining poor academic success.
Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Afro-Caribbean groups are more likely to be in lower social class positions
Whereas Chinese, African Asian and Indian groups are more likely to be in higher social class positions.

21. Outside School factors Driver & Ballard 1981 - Family Life
Suggest that the tight knit extended families and high parental expectations amongst asian communities are significant factors in academic success.
Lupton 2004 agrees and says that the respectful nature of asian parent-child relationship helps in the pupil-teacher role
Others point to the high percentage of single families in afro-caribbean families and the resulting material deprivation as being significant.

22. Reasons for better performance of Asian children over West Indian children
Many Asian families have been seen as being more academically supportive and having higher aspirations for their children. Pryce has characterised West Indian families as “turbulent” and less close knit.
Asian families are statistically more likely to be of middle class income and culture.

23. Discrimination in education can be reduced by:
Better training of teachers in multiculturalism, tolerance and the avoidance of negative stereotyping.
Effective Equal opportunities and anti racism policies in schools.
An audit of teaching materials to remove all cultural bias and racism.
More teachers recruited from ethnic minority backgrounds – positive role models.
Positive discrimination/compensatory education – more resources to be allocated where they are most needed.