Ethnic Differences in Education Achievement: Internal Factors
Labelling (black pupils and discipline, black pupils and streaming, Asian pupils)
Pupil Identities (Archer 3 identities, Chinese Pupils)
Pupil Responses and subcultures (Rejected Negative Labels, Avoiding Teacher Racism)
PP/FSM – black and white working-class children have an increased likelihood of being a PP/FSM
child – which can create labels.
Gillborn and Mirza (2000) found that black children were the highest achievers on entry to primary
school, yet at GCSE, they saw the worst results of any ethnic group.
Therefore, this challenges the assumption made by cultural deprivation theorists that black children
enter school unprepared and suggests that internal factors must play a major role in producing
ethnic differences in achievement.
Labelling
Labelling: General Knowledge:
Becker (1971) interviewed 60 teachers from Chicago high-schools and found that they tended to classify and
evaluate students in terms of an ‘ideal pupil’ and he found that teachers tended to perceive students from middle-
class backgrounds as being closer to the ‘ideal pupil’ than working-class, with black pupils being the furthest away.
Pupils identify these labels and internalise it, acting out their label and prediction, alongside teacher interaction. This
label becomes part of their self-concept (negative or positive) and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Labels such as ‘Asian Fail’ and ‘Black Educational Inferiority’ and if they do well ‘Black Genius’ – are
placed upon ethnic minorities, suggesting how teachers can frequently stereotype and make
predictions about students based upon their ethnicity. For example, it is argued that if a black child
does well academically, they are labelled a ‘black genius’ – suggesting that black students who excel
are considered an outlier and a rarity.
Gillborn and Mirza (2000) suggest that teachers often see Black and Asian pupils as being far from
the ideal pupil.
- Black students are often seen as disruptive
- Whilst Asian students are viewed to be passive, not often interacting with the class
Through Becker’s labelling process, we can see how this may lead to teachers treating them
differently and therefore causing underachievement
, Labelling: Black pupils and discipline
‘Racialised Expectations’ – racial stereotypes shaping interactions: Gillborn and Youdell (2000)
Gillborn and Youdell (2000) argue that the teachers’ ‘racialised expectations can lead to different interactions between
ethnicities. For example, they found that teachers expected black pupils to present more discipline problems and
misinterpreted their behaviour as threatening or as a challenge to authority.
When teachers acted upon this misconception, it led to negative responses and continuing further conflict, with black
students feeling picked on.
Gillborn and Youdell conclude much of the conflict between white teachers and black pupils stems from racial stereotypes
teachers hold, rather than pupil’s actual behaviour.
Labelling Process (For black pupils, based upon these ‘racialised expectations’):
1. Gillborn and Youdell, argue that the predictions and labels created by the teacher are based upon ‘racialised
expectations.
2. The teacher thus interacts different, upon the basis of racial stereotypes, which can lead to further conflict, students
feeling picked upon and students feeling teachers underestimated their ability.
3. The students realises and interprets this label and thus internalises it, becoming a SFP as it is expected to come true
on the basis of the teachers’ predictions – accounting for differences in educational achievement and explaining
how racialised expectations of black pupils can lead to the weaker grade attainment of those black pupils.
A03: However, for ethnic minorities, negative labels do not automatically turn into self-fulfilling prophecies as Fuller (1984)
found that some rejected these negative labels and worked hard to prove their label wrong and become successful.
Temporary Exclusion Rates by Ethnicity: (2018)
- Gypsy/Roma and travellers make up 36% of temporary exclusions
- White make up 6% of temporary exclusions
- Black Caribbean make up 10% of temporary exclusions
- Chinese and Indian pupils make up less than 1% of temporary exclusions, whilst Pakistani
students make up 3% of temporary exclusions.
Jenny Bourne (1994) found that schools tend to see black boys as a threat and to label them
negatively, eventually leading to exclusion. Exclusions affect achievement, 1:5 excluded pupils
achieve 5 GCSEs at C or above.
A03: This cannot be purely down to ethnicity, those groups with more affluence typically see vastly
less temporary exclusions (Indian, Chinese) in comparison to the generally perceived as poorer
(Black Caribbean, Gypsy/Roma, Pakistani) who see greater exclusions and also poorer educational
achievement – therefore this disparity can also be argued to be upon the basis of social class and
material deprivation.
Labelling (black pupils and discipline, black pupils and streaming, Asian pupils)
Pupil Identities (Archer 3 identities, Chinese Pupils)
Pupil Responses and subcultures (Rejected Negative Labels, Avoiding Teacher Racism)
PP/FSM – black and white working-class children have an increased likelihood of being a PP/FSM
child – which can create labels.
Gillborn and Mirza (2000) found that black children were the highest achievers on entry to primary
school, yet at GCSE, they saw the worst results of any ethnic group.
Therefore, this challenges the assumption made by cultural deprivation theorists that black children
enter school unprepared and suggests that internal factors must play a major role in producing
ethnic differences in achievement.
Labelling
Labelling: General Knowledge:
Becker (1971) interviewed 60 teachers from Chicago high-schools and found that they tended to classify and
evaluate students in terms of an ‘ideal pupil’ and he found that teachers tended to perceive students from middle-
class backgrounds as being closer to the ‘ideal pupil’ than working-class, with black pupils being the furthest away.
Pupils identify these labels and internalise it, acting out their label and prediction, alongside teacher interaction. This
label becomes part of their self-concept (negative or positive) and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Labels such as ‘Asian Fail’ and ‘Black Educational Inferiority’ and if they do well ‘Black Genius’ – are
placed upon ethnic minorities, suggesting how teachers can frequently stereotype and make
predictions about students based upon their ethnicity. For example, it is argued that if a black child
does well academically, they are labelled a ‘black genius’ – suggesting that black students who excel
are considered an outlier and a rarity.
Gillborn and Mirza (2000) suggest that teachers often see Black and Asian pupils as being far from
the ideal pupil.
- Black students are often seen as disruptive
- Whilst Asian students are viewed to be passive, not often interacting with the class
Through Becker’s labelling process, we can see how this may lead to teachers treating them
differently and therefore causing underachievement
, Labelling: Black pupils and discipline
‘Racialised Expectations’ – racial stereotypes shaping interactions: Gillborn and Youdell (2000)
Gillborn and Youdell (2000) argue that the teachers’ ‘racialised expectations can lead to different interactions between
ethnicities. For example, they found that teachers expected black pupils to present more discipline problems and
misinterpreted their behaviour as threatening or as a challenge to authority.
When teachers acted upon this misconception, it led to negative responses and continuing further conflict, with black
students feeling picked on.
Gillborn and Youdell conclude much of the conflict between white teachers and black pupils stems from racial stereotypes
teachers hold, rather than pupil’s actual behaviour.
Labelling Process (For black pupils, based upon these ‘racialised expectations’):
1. Gillborn and Youdell, argue that the predictions and labels created by the teacher are based upon ‘racialised
expectations.
2. The teacher thus interacts different, upon the basis of racial stereotypes, which can lead to further conflict, students
feeling picked upon and students feeling teachers underestimated their ability.
3. The students realises and interprets this label and thus internalises it, becoming a SFP as it is expected to come true
on the basis of the teachers’ predictions – accounting for differences in educational achievement and explaining
how racialised expectations of black pupils can lead to the weaker grade attainment of those black pupils.
A03: However, for ethnic minorities, negative labels do not automatically turn into self-fulfilling prophecies as Fuller (1984)
found that some rejected these negative labels and worked hard to prove their label wrong and become successful.
Temporary Exclusion Rates by Ethnicity: (2018)
- Gypsy/Roma and travellers make up 36% of temporary exclusions
- White make up 6% of temporary exclusions
- Black Caribbean make up 10% of temporary exclusions
- Chinese and Indian pupils make up less than 1% of temporary exclusions, whilst Pakistani
students make up 3% of temporary exclusions.
Jenny Bourne (1994) found that schools tend to see black boys as a threat and to label them
negatively, eventually leading to exclusion. Exclusions affect achievement, 1:5 excluded pupils
achieve 5 GCSEs at C or above.
A03: This cannot be purely down to ethnicity, those groups with more affluence typically see vastly
less temporary exclusions (Indian, Chinese) in comparison to the generally perceived as poorer
(Black Caribbean, Gypsy/Roma, Pakistani) who see greater exclusions and also poorer educational
achievement – therefore this disparity can also be argued to be upon the basis of social class and
material deprivation.
