Diane Abbott "genuinely committed to race— and wider— equality in schools"

[catch]

this load of six-year old statistics says 14.7%: but i remember seeing something in the hackney gazette or similar a year or so back which did say a quarter or more of hackney pupils were at private schools.

I'm sure that's schools outside the borough - there's not enough state school places (especially for boys) to have a place for every kid in Hackney at a Hackney school. A lot of those schools with be other state schools (and at least one denominational school I know of), rather than independent/private.

 

[Red O]

Five years ago OFSTED produced a report called 'Educational Inequality: Mapping Race, Class and Gender' (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=447. It was produced in the wake of the Macpherson report and, regardless of its title, it concerned itself more with race than class or gender ('Developing an educational agenda with regard to racial equality is clearly a priority').

And it's a legitimate area of inquiry: the educational underachievement of black boys is a reality, and it needs to be addressed. That's what this OFSTED paper is devoted to.

Then on p22 comes the kicker: a graph showing educational inequalities (5 good GCSE'S relative to the national average) in terms of gender, race and social class. The gender gap is the smallest: girls do 6% better than the national average, boys 3% worse, or a 9% gap. Then race: white children as a group do about 2% above the national average, Afro-Caribbean children 16-17% below, or about a 20% gap. Then comes the social class gap: children from 'managerial/ professional' backgrounds score 22-23% above the national average, while children from 'unskilled manual' backgrounds score around 25% below the national average, almost a FIFTY PER CENT GAP.

Now let's look at those figures again, because they may seem a little baffling at first glance: this is a report into educational inequality. It focuses primarily on race, and all it's policy recommendations focus on race. Yet the same report reveals that the biggest factor in educational inequality is not race, but class, and the report acknowledges so in it's text: "our data shows gender to be a less problematic issue than the significant disadvantage of 'race', and the even greater inequality of class", and similar throughout. Yet the focus of report is on race, not class. Why is this?

A look up at page 19 helps crystallise my thoughts: "The familiar association between class and attainment can be seen to operate within each of the main ethnic groups". Ah, now it begins to make sense.

This report was commissioned by New Labour. As I presume everyone on this board knows, New Labour doesn't give a flying fuck about reducing socio-economic inequality. In fact, they're committed to increasing it, in keeping with the dominant ideology of the capitalist class for the past thirty years. The aim of this report, of the 'racial equality in education' movement in general, is not to bring about equality between socio-economic groups, but within socio-economic groups. Put bluntly, it doesn't matter if an increasing proportion of working-class children are leaving school illiterate, unemployable and fucked for life -that's accepted as a given-, just so long as they are spread proportionately among the various ethnic groups. What matters is not the 50% gap that existed between middle-class children and working-class children in 1997, but the 5% gap that existed between white working-class children and black working-class children in 1997 (fig. 6). Or in the case of Diane Abbott and those like her, it's more likely to be: "African-Caribbean pupils from non-manual homes are the lowest attaining of the middle-class groups. In some cases they are barely matching the attainments of working class pupils in other ethnic groups" (p 21).

This movement does not seek to bring about an end to class-based inequality, it accepts class-based inequality as a starting point and then seeks to put racial quotas on it. How can such a movement possibly be called progressive or left-wing? It instead strikes me as utterly conservative and pro-middle class.

 

[rednblack]

whilst looking for pictures of public shoolboys to tease you with, came across an unlikely entrant for 'our combat girlfriends'... from the other side of the war

that looks like an anarcho who posts on here???!!!

 

[Ryazan]

The Russians just do the sexy sulky look just so much better.

 

[JHE]

Five years ago OFSTED produced a report called 'Educational Inequality: Mapping Race, Class and Gender' (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=447. It was produced in the wake of the Macpherson report and, regardless of its title, it concerned itself more with race than class or gender ('Developing an educational agenda with regard to racial equality is clearly a priority').

And it's a legitimate area of inquiry: the educational underachievement of black boys is a reality, and it needs to be addressed. That's what this OFSTED paper is devoted to.

Then on p22 comes the kicker: a graph showing educational inequalities (5 good GCSE'S relative to the national average) in terms of gender, race and social class. The gender gap is the smallest: girls do 6% better than the national average, boys 3% worse, or a 9% gap. Then race: white children as a group do about 2% above the national average, Afro-Caribbean children 16-17% below, or about a 20% gap. Then comes the social class gap: children from 'managerial/ professional' backgrounds score 22-23% above the national average, while children from 'unskilled manual' backgrounds score around 25% below the national average, almost a FIFTY PER CENT GAP.

Now let's look at those figures again, because they may seem a little baffling at first glance: this is a report into educational inequality. It focuses primarily on race, and all it's policy recommendations focus on race. Yet the same report reveals that the biggest factor in educational inequality is not race, but class, and the report acknowledges so in it's text: "our data shows gender to be a less problematic issue than the significant disadvantage of 'race', and the even greater inequality of class", and similar throughout. Yet the focus of report is on race, not class. Why is this?

A look up at page 19 helps crystallise my thoughts: "The familiar association between class and attainment can be seen to operate within each of the main ethnic groups". Ah, now it begins to make sense.

This report was commissioned by New Labour. As I presume everyone on this board knows, New Labour doesn't give a flying fuck about reducing socio-economic inequality. In fact, they're committed to increasing it, in keeping with the dominant ideology of the capitalist class for the past thirty years. The aim of this report, of the 'racial equality in education' movement in general, is not to bring about equality between socio-economic groups, but within socio-economic groups. Put bluntly, it doesn't matter if an increasing proportion of working-class children are leaving school illiterate, unemployable and fucked for life -that's accepted as a given-, just so long as they are spread proportionately among the various ethnic groups. What matters is not the 50% gap that existed between middle-class children and working-class children in 1997, but the 5% gap that existed between white working-class children and black working-class children in 1997 (fig. 6). Or in the case of Diane Abbott and those like her, it's more likely to be: "African-Caribbean pupils from non-manual homes are the lowest attaining of the middle-class groups. In some cases they are barely matching the attainments of working class pupils in other ethnic groups" (p 21).

This movement does not seek to bring about an end to class-based inequality, it accepts class-based inequality as a starting point and then seeks to put racial quotas on it. How can such a movement possibly be called progressive or left-wing? It instead strikes me as utterly conservative and pro-middle class.

Good post, Red O.

Couple of points:

1. Re. race & class in that report

The graphic you discuss (Figure 7) does not, of course, give any indication of how much of the apparent gap in attainment between pupils of different ethnic categories is in fact due to differences in class position.

What's more, when the report discusses ethnicity and class together in the bit you quote (p 21) it becomes clear that the definitions of classes used are not very helpful to analysis of class inequality.

"African-Caribbean pupils from non-manual homes are the lowest attaining of the middle-class groups. In some cases they are barely matching the attainments of working class pupils in other ethnic groups."​

A black pupil whose father is absent and lives with his mother who is from the Caribbean and is a clerical worker counts as middle class!

2. Re. Employability

There is one point on which I disagree with you.

Put bluntly, it doesn't matter if an increasing proportion of working-class children are leaving school illiterate, unemployable and fucked for life (Red O)​

That is certainly not what Blair, Kelly & Co want. On the contrary, they want all pupils to end up literate, numerate and useful to employers. The continuing failure to make all young people tolerably literate and numerate is not intentional.

 

[catch]

Five years ago OFSTED produced a report called 'Educational Inequality: Mapping Race, Class and Gender' (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=447. ..
This movement does not seek to bring about an end to class-based inequality, it accepts class-based inequality as a starting point and then seeks to put racial quotas on it. How can such a movement possibly be called progressive or left-wing? It instead strikes me as utterly conservative and pro-middle class.

Thanks for this Red O, not seen those particular statistics before. Welcome to urban by the way.

edit: and JHE's comments are on the money. Unless they've suddenly included filing as manual work they're working on ridiculous class assumptions.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Excellent post red O

not dissimilar to an excellent series of posts by the late Ernest o'lynch on the subject.

however i agree with:

There is one point on which I disagree with you.

Put bluntly, it doesn't matter if an increasing proportion of working-class children are leaving school illiterate, unemployable and fucked for life (Red O)​

That is certainly not what Blair, Kelly & Co want. On the contrary, they want all pupils to end up literate, numerate and useful to employers. The continuing failure to make all young people tolerably literate and numerate is not intentional.

Its not so much intentiaonal as something they are willing to let happen, and not so much intentional as something their economic system will never let them achieve. I think left often fucks up by blaming the govt for the side effects of its policies as if they were intentional. The metropolitan police have not been told to shoot commuters: they are under pressure to catch/kill people that fitr a certain description which may lead them to kill commuters. This is just as bad, but 'met kills commuters!' is not the way to put it. (i'm niot saying anyone has, its an example).

 

[exosculate]

Some nice points raised here.

I agree the business elite want a functionarily literate working class, and in this they are failing.

Class is an issue they don't want to focus on because it is so dangerous, gender and race issues are no where near as unpalatable to middle class intellectual discourse.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

oh another example of what i'm talking about - exaggeratiob basically - can be aseen in the 'as blair lost it thread' with people calling him insane! Sorry, but get a grip. He is a perfectly sane right wing twat. Just because he believes his own bullshit ndoesn't make him mad i'm afraid.

We should really get out of the habit of this kind of thing.

 

[sihhi]

That is certainly not what Blair, Kelly & Co want. On the contrary, they want all pupils to end up literate, numerate and useful to employers. The continuing failure to make all young people tolerably literate and numerate is not intentional.

I agree mostly but I disagree with "all"- a 5% or 10% illiterate and innumerate segment can always be attacked for failing in the "meritocracy" once it is established via "reforms".

 

[sihhi]

Its not so much intentiaonal as something they are willing to let happen, and not so much intentional as something their economic system will never let them achieve.

Do you mean ending adult illiteracy?

The economic system could be changed so that adult illiteracy is much reduced (following Scandanavian education systems- maybe?) without harming business interests or government interests too much. But as you say they don't much care about it.

 

[kropotkin]

Sorry to bump such an old thread, but I was searching for the above post by Red O that i suggest people read again- particularly in light of the current debates on here and elsewhere about the merit of ethnoreligiously constructed identities, and policies based on them.

I was spurred on to re-read this by the recent article by Kenan Malik in the CRE's Catalyst magazine linked to from elsewhere:

<snip>
The trouble is that what we think we know about race and education has little bearing on reality. In fact, race is of far less importance than we often believe. For a start, not all Asians perform well at school. Pupils of Indian origin generally tend to do well, but the performance of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis is very similar to that of blacks, particularly when we are talking about boys.

When Bangladeshis were Asians, they were bracketed together with Indians, and the differences between the two groups were largely ignored. Now that they are Muslims, the poor performance of Bangladeshis has attracted attention, but is put down to ‘Islamophobia’. In fact, in discussions about education, Bangladeshis really belong with African Caribbeans – and the cause of their poor educational performance relates, not to their race or their faith, but to their class.

At the age of seven, the performance of African Caribbean boys is virtually identical to the national average. However it falls dramatically in secondary schools – as it does for Pakistani and Bangladeshi boys. When Marian Fitzgerald used eligibility for free school meals (FSM) as a surrogate measure for poverty, she demonstrated an even more dramatic fall – at the age of 14, the scores of FSM boys are half of those of non-FSM boys. In other words, class and poverty seem more important determinants of poor educational performance than race. Yet so obsessed are we by racial categories that the question remains ‘why do black boys do so badly?’ rather than ‘why do boys from poor backgrounds, of whatever race, ethnicity or faith, do so badly?’. Racism clearly affects the lives of many Bangladeshis and African Caribbeans, but race (or culture or faith) cannot be a one-stop explanation for all problems.
<snip>