Effective Anti-Racist Guidelines in the British Education System - Literature review Example

Introduction In spite of the need for educational policies to counteract the effect of racial intolerance, ethnocentrism, and racism, such policies remain to be the object of criticism of neo-conservatives in Western societies. Since the 1980s, the leading cultural fundamentalist group of the New Right in the United Kingdom has not just disparaged and ridiculed such policies, but has aimed to enforce its own chauvinistic and racist perspective of British national identity on England’s and Wales’s National Curriculum (Pathak 2008). Antiracist educators in the UK have not taken seriously the concept of ‘new racism’ introduced by Barker (1981 as cited in Cashmore & Troyna 1990). As far as the concept is considered at all in antiracist research, it is merely cited and its value to education seems never to have been taken into account. This literature review will provide a brief review of literature on identity politics and multiculturalism, specifically concerning three of the most debated issues in the UK: (1) race, (2) ethnicity, and (3) faith in education. The author chooses the three abovementioned issues because of their persistent presence in the British society. These three issues are the major factors that put several social groups in a disadvantaged position, specifically in education and long-term employment (May & Sleeter 2010). As stated by Korn and Burzstyn (2002), access to wealth, influence, full involvement in economic, social and political life, or what may be referred to as complete citizenship, greatly relies on education. This is particularly factual for ethnic minority groups. Without a practical educational attainment they confront the double threat of exclusion and inadequate qualifications. Those who drop out from school and then fail to acquire additional training or education, are prone to become part of a marginalised group with potentially detrimental repercussions for race relations where in traditional perceptions about Asians and African-Americans (Mitchell & Salsbury 1996) are established. The first part of the literature review will discuss the distinctions between race, ethnicity, and faith. It will refer to the different definitions given by several authors. The second section will discuss the issue of race, ethnicity, and faith in the British education system. The issue of multiculturalism in education will take precedence in this literature review. Distinctions between Race, Ethnicity and Faith In this literature review, a brief description of the notion of race, ethnicity, and faith, as well as the distinctions among them, will be discussed. The concept of ‘ethnicity’ is quite new. Before the 1970s there was hardly any discussion of it in anthropology works and literature, even a mention of its definition (Faas 2010). Prior to the Second World War, the word ‘tribe’ was the chosen word for ‘primitive’ societies and the word ‘race’ for contemporary societies (May 1999). Because of the strong connection between the ideology of the Nazis and the concept of ‘race’, the word ‘ethnicity’ eventually succeeded ‘race’ in Europe and the United States (Spalek 2007). The discourse on ethnicity is confounded by a diversity of associated concepts applied to distinguish comparable trends, like nation, race, minority, and tribe. Several researchers and scholars apply these concepts synonymously while others use them as distinct terms (Spalek 2007). Nevertheless, the connection between race and ethnicity is complicated. Even though there is much continuity they are different notions. For instance, Pierre van den Berghe defines the term ‘race’ as a specific classification of ethnicity that makes use of genetic attributes as an indicator of ethnicity (Cashmore & Jennings 2002, 122). Although the connection between the two notions is more complicated than the above definition, his description is quite accurate (p. 122). British scholars normally exclusively attribute ethnicity to minority groups. This is substantiated by the definition of ‘ethnic’ in Webster’s: ‘A member of an ethnic group; especially a member of a minority group who retains the customs, language, or social views of the group’ (p. 429). Nevertheless, in European practice, ethnicity is not interchanged with the term ‘minority group’, but for ‘nationhood’ (May 1999). Everybody, in this practice, is a member of an ethnic group. In terms of faith, Velikonja stresses the relevance of faith in making sense of national identity (Cairns, Gardner & Lawton 2004). Faith or religion is commonly regarded to be one of the ancient and most basic forms of shared identity. This domain of faith also symbolises one of the most vital forces in the formation of politics and national identity, particularly without the other more dynamic forces (Cairns et al. 2004). Certainly, the faith domain is regarded one of the most lasting forces, continuing even when other forces deteriorate and disappear. Religious groups and churches, as established expressions of faith, are both political and social units and, by itself, fulfil a vital function in the formation and preservation of a nation (Fineman & Worthington 2009). Differences in faith contribute to the moulding of national identity in societies where faith diversity was and remains widespread (Fineman & Worthington 2009). In diverse societies, like the UK, faith is expressed variedly. The emphasis is not the individual, but the larger national or ethnic collective (May & Sleeter 2010). That ‘nation’ traditionally has unique ‘dogmatic’ form of relationship with their established faith. People who belong to that collective involuntarily belong to that faith (May 1999). One of the outcomes of a shared knowledge of religion is that it prioritises the ‘nation’, encouraging ethnocentrism, contrary to the individualistic view of faith that makes the person the centre of everything and encourages self-centredness (Cairns et al. 2004). The distinctions between race, ethnicity, and religion obviously depend on the kind of society they belong to. As shown in the above discussion, the understanding of race, ethnicity, and faith differs in terms of the nature of society, whether collectivist or individualistic. However, these three concepts manifest themselves differently in education, especially in a culturally diverse one. The following sections will discuss thoroughly the current status and effect of (1) ethnicity, (2) race, and (3) faith on the educational progress of cultural minority groups in the UK. Ethnicity Opportunely, majority of ethnic groups in the UK show determination in the quest for higher educational attainment which eventually is likely to bring advantages with regard to their future success (Cashmore & Jennings 2002). Nevertheless, generalisations about the general academic performance of ethnic groups in the UK are very hard to build. There is remarkable diversity among the various ethnic minorities in relation to this, with social class and gender dividing ethnicity in various ways (Searle 2001). As stated in a nationally representative research in this area, for instance, African-Caribbean girls have better performance than their male counterparts, but just when they originate from labour-intensive backgrounds (Youdell 2010); Asian girls, for example, do not outshine their male peers (Alleyne 2002); among mainstream or White students girls outperform their male counterparts (May & Sleeter 2010). Majority of the previous investigations of the academic performance of Asian and African-American students either did not consider social class or did not differentiate between the various ethnic groups in South Asia: Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Indians (Cashmore & Troyna 1990). Furthermore, they are not successful in assessing or quantifying advancement over time. They are mere illustration at one instance in a student’s school days (Cashmore & Troyna 1990). At the time of the last large-scale study on the academic performance and educational experiences of children belonging to ethnic groups, the 1985 Swann Report, it was commonly recognised that African-Caribbean students were poor academic performers (Bingham 2001). Certainly, the Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups established in 1979 was instituted due to concern about the educational achievement and experiences of West Indian students (Cashmore & Troyna 1990). The findings of the Report substantiated previous findings: “West Indian children as a group are underachieving in our education system” (Cashmore & Troyna 1990, 124). With regard to the findings reported to the Committee this was a valid assumption. Nevertheless, later studies have disclosed just how complicated an issue it is. Considerable reliability is lacking when a broad array of indicators of achievement, at various educational levels, in various parts of the UK are studied (Blackstone et al. 1998). Furthermore, it is difficult to disregard the assumption that majority of the differences discovered between ethnic minorities, comprising White students, might be a symbol of social class or, in several instances, understanding of English (Faas 2010). On the contrary, Gillborn and Gipps (as cited in Blackstone et al. 1998) denounce the notion of ‘underachievement’ as resulting in unfavourable stereotypes where in educators are forced into lower expectations of students belonging to ethnic minorities. The ‘underachievement’ of African-American children becomes a dilemma, which is prevalent and outside the control of the educator (Bingham 2001). If this view turns out to be prevalent, there is the bleak possibility of self-fulfilling prophecies and, positively, modest attempt to intervene to strive to alleviate difficulties that a number of these students may show (Cashmore & Jennings 2002). Gillborn and Gipps claim rather for putting emphasis on (Blackstone, Parekh & Sanders 1998): ...the relative achievements of pupils in different ethnic groups, conscious that total equality of output may be neither possible nor equitable, we might expect that (all other things being equal) they would achieve rather better than less motivated groups (p. 98). They furthered that because there is not a good deal of valid information about diversities of this form ‘significant different in the relative achievements of different ethnic groups may reasonably be taken as a cause for concern’ (Blackstone et al. 1998, 98). Moreover, they may imply that the educational chances of several groups are inferior to others, with resulting impacts on their life prospects (Blackstone et al. 1998). All this is unquestionable. Nevertheless, whether putting emphasis on comparative achievements instead of underachievement will alter the outlooks of educators is more questionable. Evidently, academic performance has repercussions for subsequent education. Nonetheless, the expansion of post-academic prospects, with a bigger array of options than previously, implies that achievement in school-leaving tests at 16 does not possess the relevance it has previously prior to a broader array of courses into study after education institutions were formed (Shukra 1999). The findings on the involvement of ethnic groups are clear-cut: ‘between the ages of 16 and 19 all ethnic minority groups are more likely to be at school or college than white young people’ (Blackstone et al. 1998, 100); rather, studies demonstrate that once achievement has been considered, ethnic membership is the major factor indicating stay on (Pathak 2008). Yet, unsurprisingly, social class is linked to higher educational achievement in each ethnic minority (Searle 2001); hence, the upper the social class, the larger the population of students staying on (Blackstone et al. 1998). However, a review of 1991 census findings shows that in every instance, ethnic minority students are more probable to continue their studies than Whites from a similar social class (Alleyne 2002). Surprisingly, Whites from white-collar environments are less prone to continue their studies than Bangladeshis, Indians, and Black African from blue-collar backgrounds (Faas 2010). Furthermore, Whites from blue-collar environments are less probable to continue their studies than Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Indians, African Americans, and Black Caribbean from semi-professional or uneducated backgrounds (Cashmore & Troyna 1990). The explanations for greater prevalence of stay-on by the ethnic minorities do not have to be researched. Without the appropriate investigation, we can merely hypothesise about them. Structural and cultural variables appear likely to be in effect. There seems to be a better dedication to education on the parents’ side, with more support to stay on and perhaps larger parental effect on the pupil when this support is given (Bingham 2001). It is probable that White blue-collar parents who give support to their children to continue their studies are more prone to be opposed than are Asian parents (Cashmore & Troyna 1990). Several of the differences could be explained by lesser parental influence in some groups than others. The disintegration of the labour market may also have a distinctive impact on various groups if, for instance, it is harder for young African Caribbean people to acquire employment than, for example, Whites (Youdell 2010). Continuing their studies will seem like a better alternative than joblessness for a large number of young individuals. Race Racial discrimination in the larger society may be a motivation to young Asians and African Americans to show their value by acquiring educational competencies—competencies which will enhance their opportunities of continuing into higher education or acquiring employment as well (May & Sleeter 2010). Certainly, one of the studies which have investigated the causes of stay-on among young people belonging to ethnic minority groups reported that Black Africans, Chinese, Pakistani, and Indian remain at school or aspiring for a higher education (Fineman & Worthington 2009); they aim for credentials which would result in white-collar employment. Unfortunately there are current reports that to some extent discrimination is still taking place in the university sector. As stated by McManus and colleagues (1995), after the formal investigation of the Commission for Racial Equality into St. George’s Hospital Medical School subsequent to grave accusations of discrimination, it is disappointing to find out that in many medical schools in the UK applicants belonging to a racial minority fare less well than applicants coming from a White background. Another study, according to Esmail and colleagues (1995), corroborates that several medical schools may remain culpable of bigoted practice. It discovered that there were very few validations of prejudice among applicants with exemplary grades, but that White pupils with quite low academic achievements had a greater opportunity of acquiring a slot than their non-white counterparts with the same grades. The researchers of both the abovementioned studies remark that medical schools could be unintentionally attempting to reduce entrants from non-White groups due to the uneven number of applicants from these racial minorities. As they correctly suggest, there is no excuse for this; prospective students must be chosen based on merit. When numbers of applicants of polytechnics were studied, the study found that students from racial minority groups were more likely to have obtained and admitted a recommendation for a polytechnic than their White peers (Blackstone et al. 1998). Nevertheless, additional studies, which considered other factors such as academic credentials, demonstrated that only Indian and Black Caribbean entrants persisted to be significantly more probable to have acquired admittance to a polytechnic compared to their White counterparts (Pathak 2008). Additional qualitative studies, which examine directly the correlation between teachers and students, would be helpful in this setting. Faith Faith schools in general admit very few underprivileged and impoverished students and lesser of those with disabilities or special needs in comparison to all-inclusive non-sectarian schools (Cairns et al. 2004). On the other hand, faith schools have a tendency to choose more affluent and better-educated students. Accounts of the 2001 race uprisings condemned faith schools for generating the discrimination that intensifies religious and racial conflicts (Cairns et al. 2004). According to Jupp (1997), a large number of studies have discovered that extended interaction and collaboration between racial groups is an excellent means of creating favourable race relations. At times, faith schools generate better outcomes, but they also discriminate pupils on the basis of skill, while state schools admit more underprivileged pupils in the first place (Fineman & Worthington 2009). The European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia as well as the United Nations Human Rights Commission suggests non-religious education, particularly of students, as a way of mitigating racial discrimination (Fineman & Worthington 2009). The National Secular Society has fought against the formation of faith schools in the past, and suggested the transformation of faith schools into an all-embracing secular education organisation where race and faith do not identify or characterise the children (Cairns et al. 2004). Removing faith schools will lessen social conflict between religious, ethnic, and racial groups, enhance the even-handedness of the education institution, and trim down the scale of religious fundamentalism and instruction. Conclusions As shown in the literature review, it is difficult to establish or generalise the impact of ethnicity, race, and faith on the academic achievement of students from minority groups. There are several intervening factors to be considered, such as gender, socioeconomic standing, and parental influence. However, as indicated in the findings of various researchers, these three issues greatly affect minority groups’ access to education and academic performance in British schools. The UK government and other international organisations initiate programmes to mitigate the negative impact of ethnicity, race, and faith on the academic performance or educational progress of students from minority groups. If the current trend will continue, it will certainly have a major impact on employment opportunities for young Asians and African Americans in the UK as education credentials become an increasingly vital direction into fulfilling career status or employment. Greater access to professional employment is important in thwarting the disenfranchisement of young individuals from the ethnic and racial groups. Hence it connects into numerous of the other themes involved in this issue. With the absence of complete involvement of all groups in education institutions, it is impossible to have a genuine learning culture. The fight to acquire the best education for young individuals in the UK should be wrestled with rejuvenated strength. It can happen, as shown by a large number of Asian and African American youth displaying their exceptional endeavours. Effective anti-racist guidelines in the British education system, placed in the perspective of behaviour principles and development strategies, are of major significance in facilitating the formation of unified, broad-minded multicultural society. However, additional studies on the domain of race, ethnicity, and faith in multicultural education are essential. References Alleyne, B. (2002) Radicals against Race: Black Activism and Cultural Politics. UK: Berg Publishers. Bingham, C. (2001) Schools of Recognition. UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Blackstone, T., Parekh, B. & Sanders, P. (1998) Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda. London: Routledge. Cairns, J., Gardner, R. & Lawton, D. (2004) Faith Schools: Consensus or Conflict? London: Routledge. Cashmore, E. & Jennings, J. (2002) Racism Essential Readings. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Cashmore, E. & Troyna, B. (1990) Introduction to Race Relations. London: Falmer Press. Esmail, A., Nelson, P., Primarolo, D. & Toma, T. (1995) ‘Acceptance into medical school and racial discrimination’, British Medical Journal, vol. 310, 501-2. Faas, D. (2010) Negotiating Political Identities. UK: Ashgate. Fineman, M. & Worthington, K. (2009) What is Right for Children? UK: Ashgate. Jupp, J. (1997) ‘Creating Multicultural Societies: Australia, Britain, Sweden and Canada’ International Journal, 52(3), 508+ Korn, C. & Bursztyn, A. (2002) Rethinking Multicultural Education: Case Studies in Cultural Transition. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. May, S. (1999) Critical Multiculturalism: Rethinking Multicultural and Antiracist Education. London: Falmer Press. May, S. & Sleeter, C. (2010) Critical Multiculturalism: Theory and Praxis. London: Routledge. McManus, I.C., Richards, P., Winder, B.C., Sproston, K.A. & Styles, V. (1995) ‘Medical school applicants from ethnic minority groups: identifying if and when they are disadvantaged’, British Medical Journal, vol. 310, 496-500. Merriam-Webster, Inc. (n.d.) Merriam Websters Collegiate, p. 429 Mitchell, B.M. & Salsbury, R.E. (1996) Multicultural Education: An International Guide to Research, Policies, and Programs. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Pathak, P. (2008) The Future of Multicultural Britain: Confronting the Progressive Dilemma. UK: Edinburgh University Press. Searle, C. (2001) An Exclusive Education: Race, Class, and Exclusion in British Schools. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Shukra, K. (1999) The Changing Pattern of Black Politics in Britain. UK: Pluto Pr. Spalek, B. (2007) Communities, Identities and Crime. UK: Policy Press. Youdell, D. (2010) School Trouble: Identity, Power and Politics in Education. London: Routledge. Read More