Ethnicity & Achievement: External Factors (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note

Statistics on ethnicity & educational achievement

• Statistics show that students from some minority ethnic groups (such as Chinese and Indian) achieve better results in public examinations than others (such as Black Caribbean and Pakistani)

• The 2024 Education Policy Institute report:

  • Most ethnic groups now outperform white British pupils at GCSE

  • All ethnic groups (except white and Black Caribbean and white Irish) made greater progress from 2019 to 2023 than white British pupils

  • Chinese pupils are the highest achievers:

    • 27 months ahead of white British pupils

    • 8 months ahead of Indian pupils (the next highest group)

    • Nearly 5 years ahead of Gypsy Roma pupils (lowest attaining group)

  • Ethnic attainment gaps have narrowed slightly since 2019

• Sociologists explain ethnic differences in educational achievement as a result of:

  • factors within schools and the education system (internal factors)

    • E.g., interactions between pupils and teachers, pupil subcultures and institutional racism

  • factors outside the education system (external factors)

    • E.g., cultural deprivation, material deprivation, racism in wider society, and family structure

Cultural deprivation

• Cultural deprivation theorists argue that some ethnic minority pupils underachieve because their home life does not equip them with the same skills and attitudes as the white middle class

Intellectual and linguistic skills

• Some theorists claim children from low-income Black families lack stimulation and enriching experiences

• This may result in poor reasoning and problem-solving skills

• The language spoken by low-income black families is inadequate for educational success

• However, critics argue that many ethnic minority pupils are multilingual, which can be an intellectual advantage

Attitudes and values

• Some ethnic minorities are socialised into a fatalistic "live for today" attitude, lacking the motivation to succeed in education

• Contrastingly, Asian, Chinese and African families often instil high educational aspirations, viewing education as a route to upward social mobility

Family structure and parental support

• Charles Murray (1984): Argued that young males in the African-Caribbean families underachieve because of a lack of positive adult role models and discipline

• Tony Sewell (2009): Argues it’s not the absence of fathers but a lack of "tough love" and the pull of gangs that impacts Black boys

• Ruth Lupton (2004): Found that adult authority was respected in Asian households, which aligns well with school expectations

• Archer and Francis (2005): Argue that Chinese parents see education as a 'family project' and invest time and money in their education

Evaluation of the cultural deprivation explanation

Strengths

• Research support for some cultural influences

  • Driver and Ballard (1981) and Ruth Lupton (2004) show how strong parental support and positive attitudes towards education can help overcome socioeconomic disadvantage

    • This is evident in some Asian families

Criticisms

• Blames the victim

  • Keddie argues that cultural deprivation theory wrongly assumes that minority ethnic children fail in education because they lack the 'right' values or language skills

  • In reality, these pupils are culturally different, not deprived

    • Failure is a result of schools being ethnocentric, privileging white, middle-class norms

• Ignores racism and structural inequality

  • The theory overlooks institutional racism in schools and wider society, which can negatively affect teacher expectations and curriculum content

  • Gillborn (1997) argues that marketisation allows negative stereotypes to influence school admissions, meaning that ethnic minority children are more likely to end up in unpopular schools

• Oversimplifies and stereotypes

  • Cultural deprivation theory treats ethnic groups as the same, ignoring important variations within groups

  • It does not explain why girls in most ethnic groups outperform boys or why Indian and Chinese pupils succeed despite sharing some of the same economic disadvantages

  • Evans (2006) argues that white working-class boys also underachieve, not due to a lack of culture, but because of a “white working-class street culture” shaped by poverty and limited opportunity

• Overstates the impact of language

  • Recent evidence shows language differences are not a major barrier

  • In 2010, pupils with English as an additional language achieved nearly the same GCSE results as native speakers (Gillborn and Mirza, 2000)

  • This challenges the assumption that speaking a different language at home leads to poor academic outcomes

• Educational solutions to cultural bias

  • Critics argue for multicultural education, which incorporates and values the cultures of minority students into the curriculum

    Others call for anti-racist education, which aims to challenge institutional bias and discrimination in schools

Material deprivation

• Material deprivation refers to a lack of physical or financial resources needed to live a basic, stable life

• It describes how poverty and lack of material resources can negatively affect a person’s opportunities and outcomes

• Ethnic minority groups are more likely to experience poverty, which can negatively affect educational outcomes

• Ethnic minorities often face poor housing, overcrowding, and low income, reducing access to educational resources like books and computers

• Material deprivation combined with children's experience of racism undermines their educational performance

Research studies

• Guy Palmer (2012) found:

  • Almost 50% of ethnic minority children live in low-income households (compared to 25% of white children)

  • Ethnic minorities are twice as likely to be unemployed or work low-paid jobs

• The Equality and Human Rights Commission (2010) found:

  • White British, Bangladeshi, and African-Caribbean boys who have free school meals (FSM) are twice as likely to be permanently excluded from school

• Ireson and Rushforth (2005) found:

  • Ethnic minority parents from higher socioeconomic backgrounds can afford to hire private tutors for their children

Evaluation of the maternal deprivation explanation

Strengths

• Supported by statistics

  • Stokes et al. (2015) found that educational gaps between ethnic groups have narrowed over the past two decades

  • However, students from low-income, white British backgrounds now perform worse than many minority groups from similarly disadvantaged circumstances

• Class may be more significant than ethnicity

  • Modood (2004) argues that while low income affects all ethnic groups, the impact is less severe for Indian and Chinese students than for white British students

  • This suggests that material deprivation intersects with other cultural factors

Criticisms

• Underestimates the role of racism

  • Gillborn (2015) challenges the view that only minority groups suffer inequality

  • He shows that white children in poverty can also experience serious disadvantage, but that racism still shapes the overall experience of minority groups in school

• Fails to explain high performance in poor groups

  • Chinese and Indian pupils, despite being materially deprived, often outperform white pupils

  • E.g., in 2011, 86% of Chinese girls on free school meals achieved five or more high-grade GCSEs, compared to just 65% of white girls not on free school meals, suggesting other factors are at play

• Does not account for diversity within groups

  • Ethnic groups are not the same; important variations within groups are overlooked

  • For instance, while Indian pupils tend to perform well, this masks variation based on region, language, and class background

  • Using broad ethnic categories may oversimplify complex realities

• Fails to explain recent patterns

  • Recent data (e.g., EPI 2024) shows that many ethnic groups now outperform white British pupils at GCSE, challenging the assumption that cultural or material deprivation fully explains underachievement

• Underestimates racism and institutional factors

  • These theories focus heavily on home background and overlook internal school factors

  • E.g., institutional racism, teacher labelling, and curriculum bias may systematically disadvantage some ethnic groups within schools

Racism in wider society

• Sociologists argue that systemic racism affects opportunities for ethnic minorities in employment, housing, and education

  • Systemic racism (also known as institutional racism) refers to how racism is embedded into the laws, policies, practices, and structures of a society, resulting in ongoing disadvantages for certain racial or ethnic groups

• David Mason (2000) argues that racial discrimination continues to disadvantage minorities

• Rex (1986) found that racism leads to social exclusion and worsens material deprivation, e.g., poorer housing and job prospects

• These inequalities filter into schools, reinforcing negative teacher expectations and reducing the motivation and achievement of ethnic minority pupils