Ethnic Differences in Achievement (External Factors) - Part 1
1. Patterns of achievement in relation to ethnicity
A) Describe what is meant by the concept ‘ethnicity’.
Tony Lawson and Joan Garrod (2000) define ethnic groups as ‘people who share common
history, customs and identity, as well as, in most cases, language and religion, and who see
themselves as a distinct unit.’
B) Why is the study of ethnicity and education difficult?
Problems in deciding who to include in an ethnic group. E.g should all ‘Asians’ be classified
together- when this would include people of many different nationalities, religions and
languages. It is also difficult as its commonly mistake that ethnic groups are always defined
by physical features, such as skin colour.
C) Describe the differences in achievement in relation to ethnicity.
There are inequalities in the educational achivements of different ethnic groups. For
example, the Asian ethnic group perform significantly better than other ethnic groups.
However - there are differences in achviement among Asians. For example, Indians do
better than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. There are also important class and gender
inequalities between ethnic groups in terms of achievement. For example, girls do better
than boys in every ethnic group and middle class children perform better than working class
children in all ethnicities.
2. Internal and external factors
A) Explain what is meant by external factors when studying ethnicity and achievement.
Factors outside of the school setting that affect educational achievement, such as pupil’s
culture, religion, family, and impacts of wider society.
B) Explain what is meant by internal factors when studying ethnicity and achievement.
Factors internal to the education system that produce ethnic differences in educational
achievement, such as labelling, institutional racism.
3. Cultural deprivation
Outline the key ideas of the cultural deprivation theories to explain the underachievement of
some ethnic groups.
CD theory sees the underachievement of some ethnic groups as the result of inadequate
socialisation in the home. The explanation has three main steps:
1) Intellectual and linguistic: Lack of intellectual stimulation and enriching experiences
among low-income black families. This puts these working class black pupils at a
disadvantage, as they are poorly equipped for school, due to their less developed
reasoning and problem-solving skills. Bereiter and Engelmann consider the language
spoken by low-income black American families as inadequate for educational
success- seeing it as ungrammatical, disjointed and incapable of expressing abstract
ideas. There has also been concern that children who do not speak English say
home may be held black educationally. However, officials statistics prove this is not a
major factor. For example, in 2010 pupils with English as their first language were
only 3.2 points ahead of those without English as their first language. Similarly, David
Gilborn and Heidi Safia Mirza (2000) note that Indian pupils do well despite not
having English as their first language.
2) Attitudes and Values: CD theories see lack of motivation as a major cause of the
failure of many black children. Mainstream culture, socialisation of most children,
which instils ambition, competitiveness and willingness to make the sacrifices
necessary to achieve long-term goals- equipping them for success in education. In
contrast, CD theorists argue some black children are socialised into a subculture that
, instils a fatalistic ‘live for today’ attitude that does not value education and leaves
them unequipped for success.
3) Family structure and parental support; CD theorists argue failure to properly socialise
children is due to a dysfunctional family structure.
- Moynihan (1965) argues that because many black families are headed by a lone
mother, their children are deprived of socialisation as mothers are preoccupied with
providing financially in the absence of a male breadwinner. For example, 57% of
black Caribbean and 44% of black African families were lone parents - compared
with 22% for white British families. He also states that the father’s absence also
means that boys lack and adequate role model of male achievement. Moynihan sees
cultural deprivation as a cycle where inadequately socialised children from unstable
families go on to fail at school and become inadequate parents themselves.
- The new right put forward similar explanations. For example, Charles Murray (1984)
argues that a high rate of lone parenthood and a lack of positive male role models
lead to the underachievement of some minorities. Roger Scruton (1986) sees the low
achievement levels of some ethnic minorities as a result of a failure to embrace
mainstream British culture. Ken Pryce (1979) also sees family structure as
contributing to the underachviement of black Caribbean pupils in Britain. For a
comparison of black and Asian pupils, he claims that Asians are high achivers
because their culture is more resistant to racism and gives them a greater-sense of
self-worth. By contrast, black carribean culture is less cohesive and less resistant to
racism. As a result, black pupils have low self-esteem and underachivement. Pryce
argues that the differences is the differing impacts of colonialism on the 2 groups. He
argues that the experience of slavery was culturally devastating for black people -
slaverly meant that they lost their language, religion and entire family system. By
contrast, this did not get destroyed in Asian families.
4) Sewell: Fathers, gangs and culture.
- Unlike Murray, Sewell (2009) argues that it is not the absence of fathers as role
models that leads to black boys underachiveing. Instead, Sewell sees the problem as
a lack of fatherly nurturing or ‘tough love’ (firm, fair, respectful and non-abusive
discipline). This results in black boys finding it hard to overcome the emotional and
behavioural difficulties of adolescence.
- In the absence of the restraining influence of a nuturing father, street gangs of other
fatherless boys offer black boys, ‘perverse loyalty and love.’ These present boys with
a media-inspired role model of anti-school black masculinity, whose ideal Chris Arnot
(2004) describes as ‘the ultra-tough ghetto superstar, an image constantly reinforced
through rap lyrics and MTV music videos.’
- Many black boys are thus subject to powerful anti-educational peer groups pressure;
most of the academically successful black boys that Sewell interviewed felt that the
greatest barrier to success was pressure from other boys. Speaking in standard
English and doing well at school was often viewed with suspicion by their peers and
seen as ‘selling out’ to the white establishment.
- As Sewell says, ‘The biggest barrier facing black boys is actually black peer
pressure. We need to talk about how black students discourage their peers.’
- He also argues that black students do worse than their Asian counterparts because
of the cultural differences in socialisation and attitudes to education. As he puts it,
while one group is being nurtured by MTV, the other is clocking up the educational
1. Patterns of achievement in relation to ethnicity
A) Describe what is meant by the concept ‘ethnicity’.
Tony Lawson and Joan Garrod (2000) define ethnic groups as ‘people who share common
history, customs and identity, as well as, in most cases, language and religion, and who see
themselves as a distinct unit.’
B) Why is the study of ethnicity and education difficult?
Problems in deciding who to include in an ethnic group. E.g should all ‘Asians’ be classified
together- when this would include people of many different nationalities, religions and
languages. It is also difficult as its commonly mistake that ethnic groups are always defined
by physical features, such as skin colour.
C) Describe the differences in achievement in relation to ethnicity.
There are inequalities in the educational achivements of different ethnic groups. For
example, the Asian ethnic group perform significantly better than other ethnic groups.
However - there are differences in achviement among Asians. For example, Indians do
better than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. There are also important class and gender
inequalities between ethnic groups in terms of achievement. For example, girls do better
than boys in every ethnic group and middle class children perform better than working class
children in all ethnicities.
2. Internal and external factors
A) Explain what is meant by external factors when studying ethnicity and achievement.
Factors outside of the school setting that affect educational achievement, such as pupil’s
culture, religion, family, and impacts of wider society.
B) Explain what is meant by internal factors when studying ethnicity and achievement.
Factors internal to the education system that produce ethnic differences in educational
achievement, such as labelling, institutional racism.
3. Cultural deprivation
Outline the key ideas of the cultural deprivation theories to explain the underachievement of
some ethnic groups.
CD theory sees the underachievement of some ethnic groups as the result of inadequate
socialisation in the home. The explanation has three main steps:
1) Intellectual and linguistic: Lack of intellectual stimulation and enriching experiences
among low-income black families. This puts these working class black pupils at a
disadvantage, as they are poorly equipped for school, due to their less developed
reasoning and problem-solving skills. Bereiter and Engelmann consider the language
spoken by low-income black American families as inadequate for educational
success- seeing it as ungrammatical, disjointed and incapable of expressing abstract
ideas. There has also been concern that children who do not speak English say
home may be held black educationally. However, officials statistics prove this is not a
major factor. For example, in 2010 pupils with English as their first language were
only 3.2 points ahead of those without English as their first language. Similarly, David
Gilborn and Heidi Safia Mirza (2000) note that Indian pupils do well despite not
having English as their first language.
2) Attitudes and Values: CD theories see lack of motivation as a major cause of the
failure of many black children. Mainstream culture, socialisation of most children,
which instils ambition, competitiveness and willingness to make the sacrifices
necessary to achieve long-term goals- equipping them for success in education. In
contrast, CD theorists argue some black children are socialised into a subculture that
, instils a fatalistic ‘live for today’ attitude that does not value education and leaves
them unequipped for success.
3) Family structure and parental support; CD theorists argue failure to properly socialise
children is due to a dysfunctional family structure.
- Moynihan (1965) argues that because many black families are headed by a lone
mother, their children are deprived of socialisation as mothers are preoccupied with
providing financially in the absence of a male breadwinner. For example, 57% of
black Caribbean and 44% of black African families were lone parents - compared
with 22% for white British families. He also states that the father’s absence also
means that boys lack and adequate role model of male achievement. Moynihan sees
cultural deprivation as a cycle where inadequately socialised children from unstable
families go on to fail at school and become inadequate parents themselves.
- The new right put forward similar explanations. For example, Charles Murray (1984)
argues that a high rate of lone parenthood and a lack of positive male role models
lead to the underachievement of some minorities. Roger Scruton (1986) sees the low
achievement levels of some ethnic minorities as a result of a failure to embrace
mainstream British culture. Ken Pryce (1979) also sees family structure as
contributing to the underachviement of black Caribbean pupils in Britain. For a
comparison of black and Asian pupils, he claims that Asians are high achivers
because their culture is more resistant to racism and gives them a greater-sense of
self-worth. By contrast, black carribean culture is less cohesive and less resistant to
racism. As a result, black pupils have low self-esteem and underachivement. Pryce
argues that the differences is the differing impacts of colonialism on the 2 groups. He
argues that the experience of slavery was culturally devastating for black people -
slaverly meant that they lost their language, religion and entire family system. By
contrast, this did not get destroyed in Asian families.
4) Sewell: Fathers, gangs and culture.
- Unlike Murray, Sewell (2009) argues that it is not the absence of fathers as role
models that leads to black boys underachiveing. Instead, Sewell sees the problem as
a lack of fatherly nurturing or ‘tough love’ (firm, fair, respectful and non-abusive
discipline). This results in black boys finding it hard to overcome the emotional and
behavioural difficulties of adolescence.
- In the absence of the restraining influence of a nuturing father, street gangs of other
fatherless boys offer black boys, ‘perverse loyalty and love.’ These present boys with
a media-inspired role model of anti-school black masculinity, whose ideal Chris Arnot
(2004) describes as ‘the ultra-tough ghetto superstar, an image constantly reinforced
through rap lyrics and MTV music videos.’
- Many black boys are thus subject to powerful anti-educational peer groups pressure;
most of the academically successful black boys that Sewell interviewed felt that the
greatest barrier to success was pressure from other boys. Speaking in standard
English and doing well at school was often viewed with suspicion by their peers and
seen as ‘selling out’ to the white establishment.
- As Sewell says, ‘The biggest barrier facing black boys is actually black peer
pressure. We need to talk about how black students discourage their peers.’
- He also argues that black students do worse than their Asian counterparts because
of the cultural differences in socialisation and attitudes to education. As he puts it,
while one group is being nurtured by MTV, the other is clocking up the educational
