Guidance for Local Authorities to Build More Integrated Local Education Systems - Assignment Example

Official Report Guidance for local ities to build more integrated local education systems The brief is to develop ‘a set of concrete recommendations (‘interventions’) on how best to implement school desegregation in the North-West of England’. The assignment has to be in the form of ‘an “official report” to guide local authorities to build more integrated local education systems’. Further instructions are: 1) to base the recommendations on the ‘social psychological rationale for desegregation’ (based ‘particularly on the contact hypothesis) , 2) ‘the conditions under which desegregation is likely to be most beneficial in promoting positive intergroup relations’ and, 2) to look out for ‘negative impacts’ (‘problems and obstacles’). [Apart from the above instructions, the assignment has provided nine extracts of journal articles on the currently controversial status of the ‘contact theory’ originally proposed by Gordon Allport (1954), and a list of 20 further recommended readings.] This sentence may be removed Allport’s influential theory, developed in the context of the American Civil Rights Movement is summarised in the formulation that ‘contact between groups under optimal conditions could effectively reduce intergroup prejudice. ... Allport held that reduced prejudice will result when four features of the contact situation are present: equal status between the groups in the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of authorities, law, or custom’ (Pettigrew & Tropp 2006). The landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education (Topika ruling) declaring that segregation in schools on racial lines was illegal owed greatly to Allport in the form of the social science brief submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs (Rist, 1985). This ruling however, did not ensure desegregation in practice. Indeed, the ruling was reversed in Detroit by the Millikan vs. Bradley case in 1974. In most States desegregation was accepted de jure but there were many inhibiting economic and social factors which made it impracticable de facto. (Hess, 2004). There were by this time many excellent all-Black schools that produced alumni who went on to become leaders in the arts, sports, literature, science, the armed forces, and of course politics. It is alleged that one of the unforeseen effects of desegregation was the loss of about 30, 000 Black teaching jobs during the official post-segregation period (Lowe, 2004). The practice of bussing, enabling Black pupils to travel further from their city-centre homes to suburban, formerly all-White schools was also seen as conferring mixed benefits. Most of today’s social psychologists, while acknowledging the historical usefulness of Allport’s insights, dismiss them as idealistic and not directly applicable in the real world. (Brewer, 1996, Pettigrew 1998, Dixon, Tredoux & Clack, 2005). The 1970s reversal of the desegregation policy in the USA is adjudged to be due mainly to the background of worsening economic conditions at the time. Even so, the current generation of Blacks have made tremendous advances in their progress towards equality, so much so that we can see a Black woman, Condoleeza Rice attaining high political office as the Secretary of State, and a Black Senator, Barrack Obama, contending on the Democratic ticket for the highest office in the land, that of the President of the United States of America. Turning sharply to our present concerns in the North-Western counties of the UK, we are expected to apply the lessons learnt in a widely different context (USA) to problems of racial segregation over here. Taking Oldham as an example, the problem which generalises into other trouble spots of Burnley, Bradford and Leeds, is the presence of immigrant people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin ghettoised in the centre of the city with ‘white flight’ taking off to the suburbs around these cities. The ‘problem’ was created over 40 years ago, when Oldham’s cotton mill owners found it difficult to recruit local whites to work unsociable hours at low wages in their factories. The answer was to import indigent people (‘starving Indians’) from the sub-continent, which was until recently a colony of the British. These immigrants were of the same mould as the indentured labourers that Imperial Britain exported to many parts of the world, mostly West Indies, to work (almost slave-like) on tea and sugar plantations. There was no requirement for these workers to be proficient in English. They were deployed on unskilled and semi-skilled physical labour (in ‘sweatshops’). As they began to find accommodation near the factories in the centre of the town in old Victorian houses that had seen better days, the local British began to abandon the areas where the foreign influx concentrated most. Meanwhile the immigrant numbers began to swell with the addition of family members or dependants estimated at increasing by about 50, 000 a year. Obviously there was no thought given to the civic problems that a concentration of a visibly different ethnic group, different in terms of skin colour, language, dress, habits, customs and religion, would shore up for the future. However, one voice, inconvenient at the time, stood out, but was soon silenced. This was Enoch Powell who on Sunday April 20, 1968 urged fellow Conservatives to encourage the immigrants to return home, warning of ‘Rivers of Blood’ if they were allowed to multiply in Britain.. This was inconvenient for the economy which depended on immigrant labour and was ignored. A Gallup Poll ‘at the end of April found that 74 percent agreed with what Powell had said in his speech’ and only ’15 percent disagreed’ (Costa Blanca News, April 18 -24, 2008). In the face of indifference and hostility from the indigenous population, the immigrants turned more and more to identifying themselves as a separate group, building mosques, importing artefacts peculiar to their culture, speaking their own language (Urdu) among themselves, and opening shops and restaurants to cater for their tastes. It must be said that their previous experience under the British as an ‘inferior’ race may have enabled them to accept their palpably downtrodden status in a foreign country. As social identity theorists claim, in circumstances where groups feel devalued, they have a need to boost their self-esteem by distinguishing themselves from the outgroup (Eysenck 2004). However indifferent and patchy the education their progeny received locally, it was still in English, which opened them up to the realities of the day, and therefore the younger generation may have resented the status quo which impelled them to rebel, culminating in the 2001 riots. Looking at the larger canvas, the world backdrop of Al Qaeda terrorism, Muslim youth were open to radicalisation and was turning to violence as an expression of their alienation from British society. Suicide bombers are an extreme case in point. Where government policy had been somewhat different, requiring proficiency in English as a requirement before immigration, most South Asians and Gujeratis from East Africa, found themselves integrating fairly seamlessly into the British way of life. For example, the original Diaspora of Indians and Sri Lankans along with their offspring born in the UK, appear to have better than average living standards and a high level of education. Although the concept of multiculturalism has been under attack, it enabled the majority of these immigrants to retain their customs and religion, and some of them to remain truly bilingual. It is curious that the terms ‘segregation’ and ‘desegregation’ is being used to address a phenomenon in the UK which is quite unlike that of the USA. There has been no official segregation policy in the UK at any time in its history. If segregation as applied to education simply means separate schools for distinct ethnic groups, it has occurred more because of chance factors including the sheer inability to communicate in a common language rather than due to deliberate official policy. Here it was a case of self-segregation and not an imposed one. The solution therefore is one of seeking integration of different communities in schools rather than one of desegregation. The terminology persists because academics (social psychologists, mainly) have to refer to the extensive, even though largely irrelevant literature on these topics, to justify their involvement. One has to agree with Bruce Berry, the Bradford head teacher who dismissed social psychological assessments and recommendations as tending to ‘gloss over the harsher realities of social life in cities such as Bradford’ (Dixon, Durrheim & Tredoux 2005). Even when social psychologists attempt a ‘micro-ecology of social division’ (Dixon & Durrheim 2003; Dixon, Tredoux & Clack 2005) they appear to ignore the simple, straightforward and valid, commonsense explanations in favour of abstruse jargon that obfuscates the issues. Dixon and Durrheim studied the pattern of use by Blacks and Whites of a beach in Scottburgh, KwaZulu-Natal, in South Africa, a decade or so after the abolition of Apartheid. It had been an exclusive resort for the Whites under Apartheid, but was now open for all. The authors appear to have been somewhat surprised to find that there was hardly any mixing of Blacks and Whites on the beachfront. Not only was there a huge gap socially between the majority blacks (64%), (low-paid workers) and the minority whites (24%), (bosses and professionals) there was also a fundamental difference in the reasons for their presence on the beach. Presumably, the whites came to tan themselves, swim in the sea, and relax on the beach, pursuits they had undertaken well before the abolition of Apartheid. The blacks had no such need (to acquire a tan!), perhaps also as a group less proficient as swimmers due to lack of opportunities for learning to swim, and it was a novel experience for them to relax on the beach. For want of other things to do, they would bring their music. The simple difference of the colour of their skins was in this context at least, legitimate grounds for staying apart. As the researchers observed, it would take a levelling of the playing field in terms of wealth, education and perks before we could witness a genuine integration of the two groups. Why is desegregation or integration necessary for social harmony? All learning occurs, and identities are formed in a cultural context. Tolerance has to be learned, and this is easier to learn at an early age, if not at home, then at kindergarten and primary school. Multiculturalism embraces diversity in areas of ethnicity, religion and language; extending to gender, disability, social class; and affiliations to family, organisations, and even to ideas and lifestyles (Pedersen, 1991).Cultural identity does not remain static as the history of the 20th century attests. While it is on the whole dynamic and changing, there still are cultures that are fundamentalist and reject any change. Currently, we are witnessing the activities of Muslim fundamentalists who may have been deliberately or inadvertently pushed into extremist behaviour. No social scientists have, so far, made any inroads into studying or researching why Iraq or Afghanistan had to happen. Oldham, Burnley, Bradford and Leeds local authorities, by themselves cannot be expected to find solutions to problems not of their own making and could possibly now face the fallout of a little understood catastrophic world conflict. Fortunately, UK has a world class security apparatus which is increasingly effective in nipping in the bud, the outrageous and violent behaviour of the few extremists in our midst. We can therefore turn our attention to how the many law-abiding Muslims can be made part of the greater community of citizens of the local and metropolitan authorities like Oldham, Burnley, Bradford and Leeds. We have seen that desegregation along American lines is not what is required here. What is needed, in the short run at least, is for state schools to be sited in border areas between concentrations of either community. There is also a requirement to train and hire more qualified ethnic minority teachers possibly with bilingual attainments. It would be seen as invidious to make recommendations in depth without having had access to these areas and without consulting the decision makers in these communities. It is also important to explore what has already been achieved in the light of the Cantle Report (Community Cohesion 2001). Responsibility was laid at the door of the local police, politicians and community leaders to break the ‘depth of polarisation’ in these areas. Cantle recommended an ‘oath of national allegiance’ from immigrants and a ‘meaningful concept of citizenship’ to be promoted. Another recommendation that could be implemented without delay was the requirement for at least 25% of places in single-faith schools to be offered to children of other faiths. Local newspapers too were asked to tone down their tendency towards reporting ‘inflammatory material’. We can concur with the majority of recommendations in this report. Cantle also applauds the Oldham Schools Linking Project which encourages primary school pupils’ to an ‘awareness of the cultural diversity of the local community and is helping to breakdown barriers’ (Limeside Primary School Ofsted Report February 2004 as quoted in the Cantle Report). Another recommendation with which we concur is making school resources available for adults in evening and Saturday classes for language learning and also leisure activities that promote mixing of communities. These could be in the form of coach trips to places of interest and to venues of entertainment which appeal to all sections of the community. In looking at ways to counteract the fragmented way in which such initiatives have been offered in the past, one German commentator observes: At the organisational level, the formation of networks, development partnerships, local educational landscapes etc. are efforts to counteract fragmentation in the system, and to deal with the lack of transparency. Nevertheless, migrants naturally tend to have gaps in their education as a result of biographies, so they need a range of offerings that provides interfaces between different sub-systems and institutions and provides supporting programmes. What they need is concepts which do not assume that all participants have gone through an additive series of educational sub-systems, but rather provide a modularised system with interconnections between its segments, so that the individual offerings can be put together to form a coherent whole’ (Schroeder http://www.gla.ac.uk/rg/emulti25.htm). The effects of globalisation and the Internet phenomenon of the worldwide web have begun to alter the landscape of migration which makes the old, decried idea of repatriation no longer unacceptable. We are now talking of the older generation whose continued presence could be seen as an obstacle for the new generation in British schools to adapt to the changing landscape. According to Glick Schiller, Basch and Blanc-Szanton (1992, 1997) ‘transnationalism’ is ‘the new paradigm in migration research’. The Mirpuri Muslims and the original Bangladeshis therefore could be seen as ‘transmigrants’ who ‘develop and maintain multiple relations –familial, economic, social, organisational, religious, and political that span borders. Transmigrants take actions, make decisions, and feel concerns, and develop identities within social networks that connect them to two or more societies simultaneously’ (op. cit.). This is very different from the Black experience in America which we still tend to idealise and draw upon. This view happens to be in total contrast to the views expressed in the Cantle Report which requires immigrants to swear oaths of allegiance to the one nation-state. The German commentator introduced above (Schroeder) questions the traditional migration research which ‘tends to take a dichotomous view of migration – either the migrants are here only for a temporary period and after that they have to be prepared for return to the “culture of origin” … or they will stay here, and have to adapt to “German culture”… By contrast the construct of “transnational social spaces” focuses on the fact that migrants are involved in intensive social relations in several places simultaneously, and are permanently linked to those places. This “pluri-local” lifestyle is called transnational because the places are located in different countries. He speaks of the Afghan refugees in Germany who are connected to ‘worldwide social networks stretching between the country of origin, via transit countries (such as Pakistan, Tajikistan, Russia), the country of exile (e.g. Germany) – which will not always be the same for the various members of the family – and the countries of onward migration (e.g. USA, Canada)’ (http://www.gla.ac.uk/rg/emulti25.htm ). Here we have a completely different picture of what it is to be an immigrant (migrant) in the 21st century, different from the prevailing view ‘that migrants ‘move’ mainly between a ‘country of origin’ and a ‘host’ country, in other words between two societies defined in terms of nation states’ (op. cit.). The new concept of transnational migration or ‘transnational social space’... is important in socio-political terms, and has been included in the Sixth Family Report of the Federal Government (of Germany) (BMFSJ 2000, quoted in op. cit.). However, the problem remains when these so-called social spaces ‘are still organised very much at nation-state level in their political limits, legislation and cultural aspects’ (op. cit.). This is not a problem that can be tackled by local authorities like Oldham, just by themselves. As required, here are some recommendations that appear to be non-controversial. Provide extra funding for interventions after school, in-school, and week-end school for migrants and their children Make provision to reduce income gaps Implement integrationist housing policy Employ culturally competent teachers with in-service training (extra pay) Reduce class sizes Monitor, record and evaluate interventions Reward schools with measurably successful programmes of integration (c. 2870 words) References Allport, G.W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Brewer, M.B. (1996) When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20 (3/4) 291 – 303 Community Cohesion (Cantle Report) December 2001 Costa Blanca News. April 18-24, 2008 Dixon, J. & Durrheim, K. (2003) Context and the ecology of racial division: Some varieties informal segregation. British Journal of Social Psychology 42 1-23 Dixon, J., Durrheim, K. & Tredoux, C. (2005) Beyond the Optimal Contact Strategy, A Reality Check for the Contact Hypothesis. American Psychologist, October 2005, 60 (7) 697-711 Dixon, J., Tredoux, C. & Clack, B. (2005) On the micro-ecology of racial division: A neglected dimension of segregation. South African Journal of Psychology, 35 (3) 395-410 Eysenck, M.W. (2004) Psychology: An International Perspective Psychology Press Limited (Online) Glick Schiller, N, Basch, L. & Szanton Blanc, C. (1992) Transnationalism: A new analytic framework for understanding migration. In dies. (Eds.): Towards a Transnational Perspective on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York, S 1-24 Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L. & Szanton Blanc, C. (1997) From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration, in Pries, L. (HG.): Transnationale Migration Sociale Welt, Sonderband 12, Baden-Bade, S. 121-140 Hess, D.F. (2004) Deconstructing the Brown Myth. Rethinking Psychology Online 18 (3) Spring 2004 Lowe, R. (2004) The Strange History of School Desegregation. Rethinking Psychology Online 18 (3) Spring 2004 Pedersen, P.B. (1991) Multiculturalism as a generic framework. Journal of Counselling and Development, 70 (1) 6-72 Pettigrew, T.F. (1998) Intergroup Contact Theory, Annual Review of Psychology 49 65-85 Pettigrew, T.F. & Tropp, L.R. (2006) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (5) 751-783 Rest, R.C. (1985) Book Review: Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation. Edited by Norman Miller and Marilyn B. Brewer, New York: Academic Press, 1984. Schroeder, Joachim (undated) http://www.gla.ac.uk/rg/emulti25.htm Read More