Assess The Importance Of School Factors In Creating Ethnic Differences
Assess the importance of school factors such as racism and pupils responses to racism in creating ethnic differences in educational achievement. (20 Marks)
There are many factors which lead to differences in educational achievement between different ethnic groups. These factors consist of labelling and teacher racism, pupil responses and subcultures, the ethnocentric curriculum, institutional racism and selection and segregation.
Labelling and teacher racism is when you attach a meaning or definition to them. For example, teachers may label a pupil as a troublemaker or bright. When looking at ethnic differences in achievement, interactionists focus on the different labels teachers give to children from different ethnic backgrounds. Their studies show that teachers often see black and Asian pupils as being far from the ‘ideal pupil’. For example, black pupils are often seen as disruptive and Asians as passive. Negative labels may …show more content…
lead teachers to treat ethnic minority pupils differently. This disadvantages them and may result in their failure.
Black pupils tend to be disciplined faster than others for the same behaviour as others. This was shown by studies of Gillborn and Youdell in 2000. It is argued that this is the result of ‘radicalised expectations’. They found that teachers expected black pupils to present more discipline problems and misinterpreted their behaviour as threatening or as a challenge to authority. When teachers responded to this threatening behaviour, the pupil responded negatively and it led to further conflict. In turn, black pupils felt teachers underestimated their ability and picked on them. Gillborn and Youdell both concluded that much of the conflict between white teachers and black pupils stems from the racial stereotypes teachers hold, rather than the pupils’ actual behaviour, which might explain the higher level of exclusions from schools of black boys – due to the stereotypes they are subject to. Similarly Peter Foster in 1990 found that the teachers’ stereotypes of black pupils as badly behaved could result in them being placed in lowers sets than other pupils of similar ability. This combined with the exclusions are likely to lead to lower levels of achievement.
Asian pupils may also experience labelling of teachers. Cecile Wright in 1992 found that despite schools commitments to equal opportunity, teachers held ethnocentric views; such as they took the position that British culture and Standard English are superior. This affected how teachers related to Asian pupils in that they assumed that the Asian pupils would have a poor grasp of English and left them out of class discussion or used simplistic and childish English when speaking to them. Asian pupils also felt isolated when teachers disproved of their culture or mispronounced their names. In general, teachers did not see them as a threat but rather as a problem that they could ignore. The effect was that Asian pupils (especially girls) were ‘marginalised’, which prevented them from participating fully.
Pupils respond to this labelling in different ways: the rebels, the conformists, the retreatists and the innovators. The rebels were generally a small minority of black pupils and were often excluded from school. They rejected both the goals and the rules of the school and expressed their opposition through peer group membership, conforming to the stereotype of the ‘black macho lad’. The rebels believed in their own superiority. Secondly the conformists were the largest group, those who were keen to succeed accepted the schools goals and had friends from different ethnic groups. They were not part of a subculture and were anxious to avoid being stereotyped either by teachers or their peers. The retreatists were a tiny minority of isolated individuals who were disconnected from both school and black subcultures, and were despised by the rebels. Finally the innovators were the second largest group. They valued success but did not seek approval of the teachers and conformed only as far as completing schoolwork. This distanced them from the conformists and allowed them to maintain credibility with the rebels whilst remaining positive about academic achievement.
Sometimes pupils may choose to reject negative labels all together.
An example of this is Mary Fuller’s study in 1984. She studied a group of year 11 black girls at a London comprehensive school. These girls were untypical because they were high achievers in a school where most black girls were placed in low streams. Fuller describes how instead of accepting negative stereotypes of themselves, the girls channelled their anger about being labelled into the pursuit of educational success. However, unlike other successful pupils, they did not seek approval of teacher, many of whom they regarded as racists. Nor did they limit their choice of friends to other academic achievers. Instead they were friends with other black girls from lower streams. Also unlike other successful pupils, they conformed only as far as the schoolwork itself was concerned. They worked conscientiously, but gave the appearance of not doing so, and they showed a deliberate lack of concern about school routines. This group of girls are an example of ‘the
innovators’.
The ethnocentric curriculum describes as attitude or policy that gives priority to the culture and viewpoint of one particular ethnic group while disregarding others. Troyna and Williams describe the curriculum in British schools as ethnocentric because it gives priority to white culture and the English language. It is not clear what impact the ethnocentric curriculum has. For example, while it may ignore Asian culture, Indian and Chinese pupils’ achievement is above the national average. Similarly, Maureen Stone (1981) argues that black children do not in fact suffer from low self-esteem.
Moreover Troyna and Williams argue that explanations of ethnic differences in achievement need to go beyond simply examining individual teacher racism to look at how schools and colleges routinely discriminate against ethnic minorities. They therefore make a distinction between individual racism and institutional racism. Individual racism results from the prejudiced views of individuals. Institutional racism is discrimination that is built into the way institutions such as schools and colleges operate. From this point of view the ethnocentric curriculum is a prime example of institutional racism.
Gillborn argues that marketization has given school greater scope to select pupils and this puts some ethnic minority pupils at a disadvantage. This is because selection gives more scope for negative stereotypes to influence decisions about school admissions. This view is supported by Donald Moore and Susan Davenport’s American research. Their study focuses on how selection procedures lead to ethnic segregation, with minority pupils failing to get into better schools. They found that these schools discriminated against problem students, which in turn also affects educational achievement.
There are many factors which lead to differences in educational achievement between different ethnic groups. These factors consist of labelling and teacher racism, pupil responses and subcultures, the ethnocentric curriculum, institutional racism and selection and segregation.
Labelling and teacher racism is when you attach a meaning or definition to them. For example, teachers may label a pupil as a troublemaker or bright. When looking at ethnic differences in achievement, interactionists focus on the different labels teachers give to children from different ethnic backgrounds. Their studies show that teachers often see black and Asian pupils as being far from the ‘ideal pupil’. For example, black pupils are often seen as disruptive and Asians as passive. Negative labels may …show more content…
lead teachers to treat ethnic minority pupils differently. This disadvantages them and may result in their failure.
Black pupils tend to be disciplined faster than others for the same behaviour as others. This was shown by studies of Gillborn and Youdell in 2000. It is argued that this is the result of ‘radicalised expectations’. They found that teachers expected black pupils to present more discipline problems and misinterpreted their behaviour as threatening or as a challenge to authority. When teachers responded to this threatening behaviour, the pupil responded negatively and it led to further conflict. In turn, black pupils felt teachers underestimated their ability and picked on them. Gillborn and Youdell both concluded that much of the conflict between white teachers and black pupils stems from the racial stereotypes teachers hold, rather than the pupils’ actual behaviour, which might explain the higher level of exclusions from schools of black boys – due to the stereotypes they are subject to. Similarly Peter Foster in 1990 found that the teachers’ stereotypes of black pupils as badly behaved could result in them being placed in lowers sets than other pupils of similar ability. This combined with the exclusions are likely to lead to lower levels of achievement.
Asian pupils may also experience labelling of teachers. Cecile Wright in 1992 found that despite schools commitments to equal opportunity, teachers held ethnocentric views; such as they took the position that British culture and Standard English are superior. This affected how teachers related to Asian pupils in that they assumed that the Asian pupils would have a poor grasp of English and left them out of class discussion or used simplistic and childish English when speaking to them. Asian pupils also felt isolated when teachers disproved of their culture or mispronounced their names. In general, teachers did not see them as a threat but rather as a problem that they could ignore. The effect was that Asian pupils (especially girls) were ‘marginalised’, which prevented them from participating fully.
Pupils respond to this labelling in different ways: the rebels, the conformists, the retreatists and the innovators. The rebels were generally a small minority of black pupils and were often excluded from school. They rejected both the goals and the rules of the school and expressed their opposition through peer group membership, conforming to the stereotype of the ‘black macho lad’. The rebels believed in their own superiority. Secondly the conformists were the largest group, those who were keen to succeed accepted the schools goals and had friends from different ethnic groups. They were not part of a subculture and were anxious to avoid being stereotyped either by teachers or their peers. The retreatists were a tiny minority of isolated individuals who were disconnected from both school and black subcultures, and were despised by the rebels. Finally the innovators were the second largest group. They valued success but did not seek approval of the teachers and conformed only as far as completing schoolwork. This distanced them from the conformists and allowed them to maintain credibility with the rebels whilst remaining positive about academic achievement.
Sometimes pupils may choose to reject negative labels all together.
An example of this is Mary Fuller’s study in 1984. She studied a group of year 11 black girls at a London comprehensive school. These girls were untypical because they were high achievers in a school where most black girls were placed in low streams. Fuller describes how instead of accepting negative stereotypes of themselves, the girls channelled their anger about being labelled into the pursuit of educational success. However, unlike other successful pupils, they did not seek approval of teacher, many of whom they regarded as racists. Nor did they limit their choice of friends to other academic achievers. Instead they were friends with other black girls from lower streams. Also unlike other successful pupils, they conformed only as far as the schoolwork itself was concerned. They worked conscientiously, but gave the appearance of not doing so, and they showed a deliberate lack of concern about school routines. This group of girls are an example of ‘the
innovators’.
The ethnocentric curriculum describes as attitude or policy that gives priority to the culture and viewpoint of one particular ethnic group while disregarding others. Troyna and Williams describe the curriculum in British schools as ethnocentric because it gives priority to white culture and the English language. It is not clear what impact the ethnocentric curriculum has. For example, while it may ignore Asian culture, Indian and Chinese pupils’ achievement is above the national average. Similarly, Maureen Stone (1981) argues that black children do not in fact suffer from low self-esteem.
Moreover Troyna and Williams argue that explanations of ethnic differences in achievement need to go beyond simply examining individual teacher racism to look at how schools and colleges routinely discriminate against ethnic minorities. They therefore make a distinction between individual racism and institutional racism. Individual racism results from the prejudiced views of individuals. Institutional racism is discrimination that is built into the way institutions such as schools and colleges operate. From this point of view the ethnocentric curriculum is a prime example of institutional racism.
Gillborn argues that marketization has given school greater scope to select pupils and this puts some ethnic minority pupils at a disadvantage. This is because selection gives more scope for negative stereotypes to influence decisions about school admissions. This view is supported by Donald Moore and Susan Davenport’s American research. Their study focuses on how selection procedures lead to ethnic segregation, with minority pupils failing to get into better schools. They found that these schools discriminated against problem students, which in turn also affects educational achievement.