Black/Pakistani pupils=worst,Chinese/Indian pupils=best,white-close to average (greatest majority of school population)
Intelectual and language skills: -children from low income black families lack intelectual stimulation= fail to develop reasoning/problem solving skills.
Bereiter and Engelmann: language of poorer families=ungrammatical/disjointed=children unable express abstract ideas=major barrier in educational progress
eval: Swann Report- language not a major barrier, any nagative impact only likely to be temporary- Indian pupils do well despite often not speaking English at home.
Attitudes,values and family structure: -differences may be from different socialisation.
-fatalism and immediate gratification(black children)=lack motivation to succeed.
-lack of male role model at home(african carribean boys)=encouraged turn to anti-educational macho 'gang culture'. Murray: high rate lone parenthood/lack of posittive male role models=underachievement of some minority pupils.
eval(Murray): Connor: minority ethnic parents higher value on educ. than white paretns, Sewell: only minority African Carribean boys= anti school
Cultural Deprivation (cont.)
(CONT)Attitudes,values and family structure:
-culture of poverty,Moynihan: absene of male role models (black female headed lpf)= inadequately socialised children=fail at school=become inadequate parents, perpetuating culture of poverty
-impact of slavery,Pryce: black carribean cultures less resistant to racism(slavery)=low self esteem.
-Asian families, Sewell: chinese, indians benefit from supportive families w/'asian work ethic'(contrast with black lpf^)
-Fathers, gangs and culture, Sewell: street gangs offer perverse loyalty and love, accadamically succeffuly black boys- greatest barrier peer pressure (standard english/doing well='selling out')
White working-class pupils: -underachieve becasue lower aspirations that other ethnic groups= white w|c culture. Lupton: 4 mainly w|c schools, different ethnic compositions, teachers=poorer levels behaviour/discipline in white w|c schools linked to lower levels parental support/negative attitude of white w|c parents to education. Evans: street culture in white w|c areas, brutal= brought inot schools= strong pressure to reject education.
Criticisms of CDT// Material Deprivation
Policies: Aim to counter effect of cultural deprivation(no other factors)-Operation Head Start(US) compensate for cultural deficit children suffer becasue of deprived background.
-Sure Start(UK), support development of pre-school children in deprived areas.
Criticisms:-Keddie: victim blaming- culturally different not deprived, underachieve becasue school is ethnocentric(biased towards white culture).-Ball: cultural exclusion- m|e|g parents at a disadvantage, less aware how to negotiate education system= exclusion rather than deprivation.-Gerwitz: complex school application forms=example of exclusion practices.
-cultural domination: compensatory education imposes dominant white m|c culture on minority ethnic group pupils' own culture.
MD: Guy Palmer= Em's more likely to face these problems-substandard housing/low income:1/2 em's live in low income housholds,2x likely to be unemployed,face discrimination in housing/labour market. Racism in wider society: material deprivation may be product of racism in wider society.-members m|e|g face direct\indirect discrimination at work/hosuing market= more likley low-paid jobs/unemployed=affects childrens educational opportunities. eval: m|c black pupils do less well at GCSE than (m|c) white\asian pupils=class doesnt override ethnicity.
explanation: negative racist labels=treat Em's differently, disadvantaging them=sfp=under-achievement.
Black pupils- Gillborn and Mirza: highest achievers on entering p.school(20points above average), by GCSE 21 points below average=schooling NOT background to blame.
Gillborn and Youdell: teachers had 'radicalised expectations'(labels) about them, more discipline problems, behaviour seen as threatening=more likely than others,punished for same behaviour. pupils felt picked on/teacher underestimated their abilities=conflict between white teachers/black students stems from racist stereotypes not abilities/behaviour. leads to=higher rate of exclusions (Bb's)/placed in lower streams.
Asian Pupils- Wright:(teachers)assumed would have poor grasp of english, used simplistic language towards them, mispronouned names, saw as problem could ignore = low self-esteem/pushed to side,stopped from participating fully=underachivement.
Connolly: teachers in p.school saw Ab's 'feminine', vulnerable, less likely to be able to protect themselves.
Pupil subcultures (ethnicity)
Sewell: Back boys adopted range of responses to racist labelling:
-Conformists; largest group,keen to suceed,accepted schools goals.
-Innovators; 2nd largest, pro-education/anti-school, valued success not teacher approval.
-Retreatists; tiny minority, iscolated/disconnected from school/black subcultures.
-Rebels; small but highly visible minority, rejected schools goals,conformed to stereotypes "black macho lad", aim was to achieve status of 'street hood'.
=teachers saw ALL this(rebel)way= uderachievement is many boys, not just rebels due to discrimination by teachers.
eval: Sewell, argues external factors more important than internal// doesnt tell us the reasons why different responses are chosen.
Rejecting negative labels: Fuller- high achieving black girls, valued education, gave appearance of not working hard= maintain positive self-image, rejecting teachers sterotypes of them. (similar to Innovators in Sewell's study). Mac an Ghail's- black and asian students, all girls school gave them greater academic commitment
= criticise labelling for being too deterministic (doesnt inevitably result in a sfp)
however, Mirza: black girls strategies to deal w/teacher racism( not asking certain teachers for help) restricted opportunities= reject label but still disadvantaged.
built into structrue of schools unconsciously, critical race theory= deep-rooted, 'locked-in' feature of education system. examples of institutionalised racism: 'ethnocentric' curriculum.
Troyna and William: it gives priority to white culture and English Language(doesnt look at Asian compared to European languages).
David: National curriculum, "specifically British", teaches culture of 'host community'.
Ball: history curriculum,"mythical age of the Empire",ignores history of Black and Asian people.
=m|e|g feel as though culture/identity not valued, diminishes self-esteem= negative effect on educational achievement. eval: not clear what impact EC has, ignores Asian culture but chinese and indians achieve above average.
Selection and Segregation-marketisation= selecting pupils, negative stereotypes influence decisions. Assessment- Gillborn: rigged to validate dominant white culture supperiority- baseline tests scrapped 2003, showed blacks ahead of whites, replaced by teachers opinion (racist sterotypes). Access to opportunities- whites 2x more likely to be G&T than blacks, Strand:blacks entered for lower exams bc of lower streams=sfp. New IQism- alloctaes pupils to different streams, false assumption that 'potential' is fixed quality that can be measured= blacks in lower streams.