You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Patterns of educational achievement in the UK vary significantly by ethnicity. While some ethnic minority groups (notably Chinese and Indian pupils) consistently outperform the White British average, others (particularly Black Caribbean, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi pupils) have historically underachieved, although the picture is complex and changing. The AQA specification requires you to understand and evaluate both external factors (outside school) and internal factors (within school) that contribute to ethnic differences in achievement, as well as to consider how ethnicity intersects with class and gender.
Key Definition: Ethnic differences in achievement refer to the measurable differences in educational outcomes between pupils from different ethnic backgrounds. These differences are shaped by a complex interaction of cultural, material, and institutional factors.
Recent data from the Department for Education shows a complex pattern:
These patterns challenge simplistic explanations based solely on racism or cultural factors, because some minority ethnic groups who face racism still achieve highly, while some White British pupils from deprived backgrounds underachieve significantly.
Some ethnic minority groups are more likely to experience poverty and material deprivation. Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Black Caribbeans are statistically more likely to live in low-income households, experience unemployment, and live in overcrowded housing. Flaherty (2004) found that ethnic minorities are more likely to be in low-paid work, to experience higher rates of unemployment, and to live in substandard housing. Material deprivation can therefore contribute to lower educational achievement for some ethnic groups.
However, material deprivation alone cannot fully explain ethnic differences. Indian pupils, who also experienced significant poverty in earlier decades, have consistently achieved well. Chinese pupils also achieve highly despite not all being from affluent backgrounds. This suggests that cultural and other factors play an important mediating role.
Cultural deprivation explanations argue that some ethnic minority families fail to provide the cultural resources needed for educational success. These explanations are highly controversial and have been criticised as racist and victim-blaming.
Driver and Ballard (1981) highlighted positive aspects of Asian family culture that might contribute to higher achievement. They found that Asian families placed a strong emphasis on education, had high aspirations for their children, and provided supportive extended family networks. This cultural emphasis on education as a route to social mobility could explain the high achievement of Indian and, increasingly, Bangladeshi pupils.
Ken Pryce (1979), in his study of the Black Caribbean community in Bristol (Endless Pressure), argued that Black Caribbean culture had been more disrupted by the experience of slavery than Asian cultures. He suggested that this had led to weaker family structures, less parental authority, and a less cohesive community, which in turn affected educational outcomes. This argument has been widely criticised as culturally biased and based on stereotypical assumptions about Black family life.
Sewell (2009) argued that the problem for some Black Caribbean boys was not racism but the absence of strong male role models, particularly fathers, in the home. He suggested that this left boys vulnerable to the influence of anti-educational street culture. Critics argue that Sewell ignores structural racism and blames Black families for systemic failures.
Rex (1986) argued that racial discrimination in housing, employment, and wider society leads to material deprivation for ethnic minorities, which then affects educational achievement. Ethnic minorities may face discrimination in the job market, which can reduce parental income and create a sense of futility about the value of qualifications. If you believe qualifications will not lead to good jobs because of racism, the motivation to work hard at school is undermined.
Key Definition: Institutional racism refers to the way in which racist outcomes are produced by the routine practices, policies, and procedures of institutions, even without the conscious intent of individuals within those institutions. The Macpherson Report (1999) defined it as "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin."
Gillborn and Youdell (2000) found that Black Caribbean pupils were disproportionately placed in lower sets and entered for lower-tier GCSE examinations, limiting their potential grades. Teachers' expectations and the school's assessment practices systematically disadvantaged Black pupils. Gillborn described this as "locked-in inequality" — the education system produces racial inequality through its normal, everyday practices, even though individual teachers may not intend to be racist.
Gillborn (2008) developed this argument further, arguing that the education system operates as a form of "White supremacy" — not in the sense of deliberate racism, but in the sense that the system's structure, curriculum, and assessment practices consistently advantage White pupils and disadvantage Black pupils.
Research has documented how teachers' expectations and interactions with pupils differ by ethnicity.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.