Assess the importance of school factors such as racism and pupils responses to racism in creating ethnic differences in educational achievement

Youdell (2000), in one local education authority found that African Caribbean children were the highest achievers on entry to primary school, yet by the time it came to GCSE, they had the worst results of any ethnic group. If an ethnic group such as the African Caribbean in this case, can begin compulsory schooling as the highest achievers and yet finish it as the lowest achievers, suggests that the factors are internal factors within the education system play a major part in producing ethnic differences in achievement. One such internal factor is labelling and teacher racism. To label someone is to attach a meaning or definition to them. For example, teachers may label someone as naughty, clever, stupid. Interactionist sociologists focus on the different labels teachers give to children from different ethnic backgrounds. Their studies show that teachers often see Black and Asian students as being far from the ‘ideal pupil’. For example, Black pupils are often seen as disruptive and Asians as passive. To the school or institution such teacher labelling may not be seen as a major issue in creating difference in ethnic achievement, however such negative labels disadvantages such ethnicities. It may discourage or demoralise them, whereby they lose self belief and eventually behave in the way they were initially labeled. A good example of the labelling on black pupils comes from the studies of Gillborn (1990) and Youdell (2000). They found that teachers were quick to discipline black pupils than others for the same behaviour. They argue that this is the result of teachers ‘racialised expectations’. They found that teachers expected black pupils to present more discipline problems and misinterpreted their behaviour as threatening or as a challenge to authority. This low expectation based on ethnicity, in turn makes the teachers label them negatively, which may discourage the students from actually working towards their full potential, thus creating difference in ethnic achievement. However some sociologists, teachers, educational institutions, may argue that such labelling encourages students to work harder to prove the teacher wrong and may result in better achievement. For example, in Mary Fuller’s (1984) study of a group of black girls in year 11 of a London comprehensive school where they rejected the negative labels. Instead of accepting negative stereotypes of themselves, the girls channeled their anger about being labeled into trying to perform better, in terms of educational success. However this is not the case in most cases. Mirza (1992) studied black ambitious girls who faced teacher racism. However the girls in this case, failed to achieve their ambitions because they were restricted in various ways. For one,  Teachers discouraged them from being ambitious through the advice they gave them in terms of careers and option choices. For example, they discouraged them from aspiring to professional careers.  In most cases racism and negative labelling discourages the ethnic minorities and could be argued is a major reason for ethnic difference in achievement. However there is a contradiction to this idea, as ethnicities such as the Chinese, who also face such racism and negative labelling, are one of the top academic achievers. This could imply that it is not just internal factors such as labelling, racism etc, but other external factors such as material deprivation, cultural deprivation that also play a part in the difference in achievement. The ‘ethnocentric curriculum’ is another internal factor that plays a part in creating ethnic difference in achievement. It describes an attitude or policy that gives priority to the culture and viewpoint of one ethnic group while disregarding others. Troyna and Williams (1986) describes the curriculum in British schools as ethnocentric because it gives priority to white culture and the English language. Therefore this is argued to be a disadvantage to other ethnicities and possibly results in difference in achievement between cultures. However, it is not clear what impact the ethnocentric curriculum has. For example, while it may ignore Asian culture, Indian and Chinese pupils achievement is above the national average.  Troyna and Williams argue that explanations of difference in achievement go beyond teacher racism towards individuals but rather the discrimination that is built into the way institutions such as schools and colleges operate (institutional racism). From this view, the ethnocentric curriculum is a main example of institutional racism. For example the lack of provision of Asian languages, according to them is an example of racism because it is an example of racial bias being built into everyday workings in schools and colleges. This institutional racism may create an enviroment where ethnic minority pupils are disadvantaged by a system that disregards their needs. However some  educational institutions may argue it is not mainly due to this, but external factors and racism in wider society that creates this effect. Racism in society, seen through media sources ( movies, adverts, magazines etc) which is exposed to young children. In conclusion, although internal factors such as racism, labelling, and pupils response to such factors is at the heart of ethnic difference in achievement, other external factors such as cultural deprivation, material deprivation, racism in wider society, could be argued also play a part and are equally important.