External Ethnicity factors

• Cultural Deprivation


  Cultural Deprivation theorists see ethnic under-achievement as the result of inadequate socialisation at home which relates to 3 aspects:

  • Intellectual and linguistic skills
  • Attitudes and values
  • Family Structure
• Cultural deprivation - intellectual and linguistic skills


  Cultural Deprivation theorists see this as a major underachievement for many minority children.

  Children from low income black or Asian families lack intellectual stimulation and enriching experiences to equip them for education.

  Bereiter and Engelmann - language spoken by low-income black American fams is inadequate for educational success.

  Language is ungrammatical and disjointed.

  Bowker see this as a major barrier to progress in education and integration into wider society.
• Criticisms of intellectual and linguistic skills


  In 2010 pupils with English as their first language were only 3.2 points ahead of those without English as a first language.

  Gillborn and Mirza (2000) argue that Indian pupils do very well despite often not having English as their home language.
• Attitudes and values


  CD theorists see lack of motivation as cause of failure for black children.

  Most other children are socialised with mainstream culture which instils ambition, competitiveness and willingness to make sacrifice to achieve long term goals.

  CD theorists believe some black children are socialised into a subculture that doesn't value education = underachievement.

  Dr Mohammad Ali studied the low achievement of some Bangladeshi and Pakistani children and put blame of their underachievement on the amount of time they spent on the mosque studying the Qur’an.
• Family structure and parental support


  • failure to socialise children is a result of a dysfunctional family structure.
  • Daniel Moynihan (1965): claims that many black families are headed by a lone mother, their children are deprived of adequate care as she struggles financially in the absence of the male breadwinner. The boys also lack an adequate role model of male achievement.
  • Moynihan: sees this as a cycle, where poorly socialised children fail at school and then become inadequate parents who raise children who fail.
• Family structure and parental support


  • The Swann report (1985): suggest a more tightly knit Asian family structure compared to African Caribbean, which might why explain why Asian may achieve. Few women of southern Asia are single mothers whereas this is common in African Caribbean.
  • Driver and Ballard (1981): claim that Asian families encourage their children to work hard and give support to their children.
• Family structure and parental support - New Right


  • Murray (1984): the lone parenthood and lack of positive male role models leads to underachievement in some minorities.
  • Scruton (1986): low achievement in some minorities is a result of failing to embrace mainstream British culture.
  • Pryce (1979): compared to Black and Asian pupils – Asian pupils are seen as higher achievers as their culture is more resistant to racism and gives them a greater self – worth. Black Caribbean is less resistant to racism which leads to black pupils have low self esteem and underachievement.
• Criticisms by Sewell


  It is not the absence of fathers as role models that leads to black boys underachieving but the lack of fatherly nurturing support and consistent discipline = black boys find it hard to overcome the emotional and behavioural difficulties of adolescence.

  Street gangs of other fatherless boys offer black boys loyalty. Presents boys with a media-inspired role model of anti-school black masculinity.
• Criticisms by Sewell


  E.g. Chris Arnot 2004: enforces the tough ghetto image through rap lyrics and MTV videos. Promotes violence and opposes authorities. Sewell also argues that black boys are subjected to powerful anti-school peer group pressure.

  Black students do worse than Asian because of cultural difference in socialisation and attitude to education.

  Gillborn (2008): argues that this is not peer pressure but institutional racism within educational system that produces failure of large number of black boys
• Criticisms of Cultural Deprivation

  Vincent et al (2011): found that black m/c are concerned about their child’s education and are involved, and make an effort to meet teachers. However, the teacher assumed that they knew less about their child’s education compared to white parents,

  Moon and Ivins (2004): found parental involvement was greater in ethnic minority parents
• Criticisms of Cultural Deprivation

  Geffrey Driver (1977): CD theorists ignore positive effects of ethnicity on achievement. He showed that black Caribbean families provide girls with positive role models so black girls tend to be more successful in education than black boys.

  Lawrence(1982): challenges Pryce’s view that black pupils fail due to weak culture and low self-esteem. They underachieve die to racism.

  Keddie: see CD as a victim blaming explanation. Argues ethnic children are culturally different, not culturally deprived. They underachieve due schools being ethnocentric.
• Asian families


  Sewel: argues that Indian and Chinese pupils benefit from supportive families that have ‘Asian work ethic’ and place high values on education.

  Lupton (2004): claims the adult authority in Asian families reflect the model that operates in school, this creates respectful children and parents support the strict behaviour policies – in comparison to white w/c families
• White working class families


  Often underachieve and have low aspirations.

  McCulloch (2014): surveyed 16,00 pupils and found that ethnic minorities pupils are more likely to aspire to go to uni than white British.

  Low achievement = lack of parental support.

  Lupton studied w/c schools: she found that teachers reported poorer levels of behaviour and discipline in the white w/c despite that there were fewer children of free school meals.
• White working-class families


  Teacher blames this on lower parental support and negative attitude that white w/c parents had towards education.

  Minority parents saw education as a ‘way up in society’.

  Evans (2006): argues street sub-culture in white w/c areas can be brutal and so young people have to withstand imitation – school can be a place where the games that young people engage in on the street – bringing disruption and making it hard for people to succeed
• Material Deprivation


  Factors such as housing and low income.

  Poverty of many ethnic-minority parents means that their children are unlikely to attend private schools.

  Bhatti(1999): because of financial constraints, some Asian students left education before their parents would have liked.

  Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are over 3X as likely as whites to be in the poorest fifth of the population.

  Unemployment is three times higher for African and Bangladeshi/Pakistani people than for white people.
• Material Deprivation


  15% of ethnic minority households live in overcrowded conditions, compared with only 2% of white households.

  Pakistanis are nearly twice as likely to be in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs compared to whites.

  Ethnic minority workers are more likely to be involved in shift work.

  Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are more likely to be engaged in low-paid home working, sometimes for as little as £1.50 per hour.
• Does class override ethnicity

  Indian and Chinese pupils who are MD still do better than most.

  E.g. in 2011, 86% of Chinese girls who received free school meals achieved 5+ GCSE higher grade compared to 65% of white girls who where not receiving the FSM.

  Suggests MD and social class do not completely override the influences of ethnicity.

  E.g Tariq Modood (2004) found that while children from low-income families generally did less well, the effect of low income where much less for other ethnic groups than for white pupils.
• Racism in wider society

  Poverty is a product of racism.

  Rex (1986): shows how racism leads to poverty.

  Housing: discrimination means minorities more likely to be forced into substandard accommodation than white people of the same class. Employment – wood et al (2010): sent 3 closely matched job applications to 1,000 jobs and used names associated with different ethnic groups. Only 16 ethnic minority were offered aninterview (1 in 9 white applications).

  Ethnic minorities more likely to face unemployment and low pay – this has a negative effect on children’s education prospect