Notes on: Tikley, L (2021). Racism and the future
of antiracism in education: a critical analysis of
the Sewell report. British Educational
Research Journal 48:469 – 87. DOI:
10.1002/berj.3776
Dave Harris
[Makes some of the same methodological criticisms
of Sewell as me!]
The criticism focuses on the claims to
objectivity, the erasure of racism as a major
concern, and the shortcomings of the main
recommendations that arise. But first — the wider
political and ideological context. In terms of
positionality, the author is an antiracist
activist but also a practitioner and researcher.
Sewell was instigated by
Johnson as a response to the events of 2020
including the BLM movement and was part of a
conscious attempt to change the narrative on race
and ethnicity. Membership was predominantly
black and Asian. The main finding was that
antiracists got it wrong, that Britain is not
institutionally racist and that our institutions
have become fairer in their treatment of
minorities. The report was greeted with euphoria
from right-wing commentators and seen a victory
against the emotional rhetoric of BLM. In
particular, there was praise for the argument that
the lines dividing us are based on class and not
race. Anti-racists responded with 'despair and
anger' (470) and the report was accused of not
understanding the nature of racism or whitewashing
[sic] the experiences of people of colour,
in particular by denying institutionalised racism.
We should locate the Sewell report in terms of the
organic crisis of British capitalism, referring to
Gramsci. The aftermath of the 2008 economic crash
led to policies of austerity exacerbated by the
pandemic and the threat posed by climate change.
This led to the classic attempt to redefine 'the
"national popular", how the British nation is
constituted in discursive terms, a new populist
nationalist discourse to respond to globalisation
and the perceived threat by immigration 'all of
which contributed to the Brexit vote' (471) [very
little actual evidence for much of this, of
course]. Contradictions emerged in the Tory party,
just as with Hall on Thatcherism — the new right
embraced libertarian free market thinking, but we
are witnessing a resurgence of the old right,
stressing national populism, and a redistributive
agenda, '"levelling up"'. Hence the need to 'focus
on the white working class', found in Sewell.
Actually, race is centrally implicated too. In
ideological terms, the reports helps the response
to culture wars, the perceived attacks on British
values, the danger posed by antiracist activists,
micro-aggressions, and the need to decolonise the
curriculum.
Changing the narrative on race and ethnicity also
means controlling the equalities agenda instead of
Labour. Appointing a predominantly black and Asian
panel is 'an effort to secure legitimacy for the
report', but those members had already
demonstrated their values — they were appointed by
the head of Downing Street Policy who had already
said she did not believe that institutional racism
was responsible for racial disparities, and the
right-wing press saw them as individuals who had
rejected victimhood status. Meanwhile Sewell 'had
previously expressed openly homophobic views,
later retracted', [not racist ones though?] and
his appointment had been subject to legal review
after being criticised by the Runnymede Trust: he
had already criticised institutional racism.
Several other members were 'known for their right
of centre views and history of links with the Tory
party'.
The Report looks at education, employment,
fairness at work crime and policing and health,
the section on education reflects the overall
message — that if racism does exist 'it plays a
relatively small part in determining racial
disparities compared to other factors' (472).
There are many assertions that the findings are
evidence and data led but 'this is, however,
palpably not the case' [lots of statistical
evidence of course -- the Report drowns in it].
The commissioners have already denied the
existence of institutional racism [a quote from
2010 has Sewell saying that the evidence for
institutional racism is flimsy and already blaming
poor parenting and peer pressure]. 'The report is,
therefore more accurately interpreted as an
ideological effort to confirm rather than
critically evaluate these prior assumptions' [an
assumption in itself -- it would be hard to
sustain as mere ideology without that mass of
evidence?]. It is highly selective in evidence,
drawing upon 'commission research that fits the
central narrative' and ignoring submissions from
organisations that provided evidence in support of
institutional racism. [ eg a submission by
Gillborn, Bhopal, Crawford et al]. Where there is
one submission that highlights racial bias among
teachers, the possibility is quickly shut down in
favour of more observable metrics.
This failure to engage with qualitative evidence
is particularly problematic, 'as it is through
accessing "lived experience" that the often subtle
ways in which racism operates and manifests
itself… Come to light' (473) and lots of Tories
also reject lived experience generally. This can
be seen as 'testimonial injustice, where the
voices are victims of racism are themselves
marginalised from debate'. [No criticism of
testimony here though, although he hints at it
elsewhere in his piece
on critical realism]
The report embraces 'a positivist empiricist
approach to evidence'. However, Bhaskar and other
critical realists have argued that there is an
epistemic fallacy involved, that 'we choose to
measure and what we observe from measurements can
be considered a reflection of reality provided the
statistical methodology employed is suitably
robust' (473) [Archer is actually cited, and this
is a reasonable summary of Bhaskar's
position — but it would surely apply to lived
experiences evidence as well as above]. Measures
we employ are not objective but are themselves
based on preconceived ideas or assumptions and may
have an ideological bias. One such example is the
reduction of the category working class to
learners eligible for free school meals.
Statistics generally only provide a surface
actuality. Measuring correlates can be helpful in
identifying broad trends, but whole systems with
interactions and perceptions 'requires going
behind the numbers to understand qualitatively
what is going on' [again not relying on personal
evidence alone].
Qualitative research [including interviews,
narrative enquiries classroom observations] is
crucial, on its own or in combination with
quantitative evidence [indeed, not just testimony]
in highlighting every day racism including
stereotyping and how interactions become
racialised. This is why we usually use mixed
methods. 'In keeping with critical realism' [as a
start]. Social scientists should develop theories
that provide the best fit for observed phenomena
'from a rational appraisal of the best available
evidence, including quantitative and qualitative'
[NB including]. Critical realists 'assume an
ontological level of reality exists outside the observer's
perception of reality [but] also embrace the idea
of epistemic pluralism (ie. the different kinds of
evidence need to be evaluated against their own
internal criteria of validity and reliability) [do
they?]' No research can never be neutral.
Researchers need to be transparent and self
reflexive [not committed then]. Institutional
racism must be considered 'because of the sheer
weight of evidence (both qualitative and
quantitative) there is to support this view'.
There is overreliance on Strand's analysis of the
Longitudinal Study of Young People in England,
showing that those groups most at risk of
underachieving are white British, Black Caribbean
and mixed white and black Caribbean heritage
learners. Indian Chinese and black African groups
outperform learners of White British heritage
regardless of socio-economic status [and so on].
The two reported incidents of ethnic
underachievement compared to white British
students of the same socio-economic class and sex
are black Caribbean and black African boys and
Pakistani girls. Generally the overall findings
show the significance of socio-economic status.
Strand uses a composite measure of socio-economic
status — parental occupation, qualifications and
income not just FSM. However, when it comes to
explaining the disparities, he refers to 2 related
theories including the immigrant paradigm, where
immigrants spend more time on education than the
native population. What is not included, however
is evidence that shows that these learners are
still 'subject to racist stereotyping and bullying
even if they do outperform other white and ethnic
groups in terms of attainment… These groups
succeed despite the existence of racism targeted
at them' (474) [so racism can be more than
compensated for? Or it shows negative
self-fulfilling prophecies?].
The immigrant argument can also not explain the
continued underperformance of learners who are not
recent immigrants, and here Strand cites
'"selective assimilation"' — whether groups are
prepared to selectively assimilate into British
culture while maintaining their own cultural
identities or remain segregated, which might
explain Pakistani underachievement compared to
Indians — again Islamophobia is not considered
[which could be the result of segregation?]
With people from Caribbean origins, there seems to
be a less optimistic view of the potential of
education and again Strand distinguishes between
voluntary minorities, who may be recent arrivals
and have high educational aspirations and
involuntary or caste- like minorities [the
examples given are African-Americans or black
Caribbean and white working class pupils in
England] who are less optimistic about social
mobility. The key explanatory here seems to be
family structure and broken homes especially
absent fathers, and negative peer pressure, but
these interpretations are not objective. They rule
out a recognition of racism straight away, in the
difference between explained and unexplained
disparities. The Report also ignores
intersectionality especially the intertwining of
race, class and gender: '"race is the modality in
which class is lived"' (475) [attributed to Hall
et al. 1978, and obviously indexing something far
more than intersectionality. Something more like
Poulantzas?]. Class is not just another variable
controlled by multivariate analysis. Correlation
does not equate to causality. Even if class and
attainment are strongly associated, this 'does not
mean that the experience of racism is not also
played a significant role in the way that class
advantage is itself constituted and reproduced
through education [true, but it still makes race
an epiphenomenon?].
The Runnymede Trust say that two thirds of black
Caribbean children grow up in single-parent
families, three times as high as the overall
average, but again this can be misleading. Many
'supposedly absent fathers are in fact actively
involved in raising their offspring and black boys
may also have other male role models'. 'There is
evidence [his own work] that many black Caribbean
boys raised in single-parent households have a
positive sense of the self-identity and have high
educational aspirations'. There is a negative
stereotype though. Young black men can also
encourage each other to succeed despite the worry
about negative peer pressure. Overall, 'a simple
causal relationship cannot be simply assumed… Any
theory of underachievement must inevitably embrace
the idea of multi-causality with racism as one
major contributing factor' [this is already a bit
of a backtrack on seeing it as the dominant
factor?]
Sewell is particularly critical of the inflation
of racism as a term, especially institutional
racism. They endorsed the MacPherson definition,
but then said that current definitions should be
subject to robust assessment and evidence. There
is already substantial quantitative and
qualitative evidence. Strand's own analysis
has some 'which was omitted from the main
report'(476) on how low teacher expectations can
lead to disproportionate representation in lower
ability sets and entry for lower examination
tiers, and this has been confirmed by a number of
other studies (including the one on Aim Higher?).
The same goes for school exclusions [which is
discussed by Sewell]. Sewell thinks this can be
explained away by using things like social class
and family structure or the diagnosis of SEN, but
black learners are labelled as SEN in the first
place often as a result of low teacher
expectations and low self-esteem arising from a
lack of black identities in the curriculum and the
failure to communicate to the parents of black
learners and 'these issues have not gone away'
since Coard's day in 1971 [he cites Lindsay 2006].
It is the failure to do anything about these
practices 'that makes them a prima face [sic]
example of institutional racism' (477).
There is also the challenge of bad behaviour in
inner-city schools especially. Sewell talks about
anti-academic street cultures which ignores the
evidence that low teacher expectations and
negative stereotypes of black males and the uneven
and 'at times culturally insensitive application
of school behaviour management policies' can have
a role. Again there is 'considerable qualitative
evidence of the biased way' in which some white
teachers apply behaviour management policies, and
many black parents have complained. [See the arguments about
black culture specifically]. The Report ignored
research on the effects of underrepresentation of
black and minority ethnic teachers especially in
senior leadership positions, and slides instead to
studies relating to gender underachievement. It
calls for greater inclusivity in the
representation of people from minority ethnic
backgrounds in the curriculum but fails 'to
acknowledge the extent to which the existing
curriculum whitewashes British colonial history',
and omits any discussion of language support for
newly arrived learners, which has suffered a
series of cuts.
The Report does not consider that racial bias on
the part of employers might be responsible for the
underrepresentation in apprenticeships, nor their
underrepresentation in high tariff universities —
this is seen as a result of poor career guidance,
but again there is significant evidence of
discriminatory practices and admission processes
[must look this up too]
The report argues the need to focus on all
learners especially from low socio-economic
backgrounds and sets out strategies to address
their needs, including improved support for
parents, targeting and funding, extending the
school day support for high performing trusts,
good leadership and so on. These just echo decades
of research and school effectiveness and ignore
the need to also tackle racism. This is not a
mutually exclusive goal. Class inequality is a
pressing issue and the government is not tackling
it, indeed may be increasing say with the cuts to
the Sure Start scheme. The whole thing might just
be a useful ideological discourse about white
victimhood.
The Report argues that we should abolish the term
BAME and again this is not new and many antiracist
been arguing this for years. It should lead to
recognise the existence of multiple forms of
racism with different effects, such as
Islamophobia, not mentioned once in Sewell, or the
specificity of antiblack racism [see the debate
about blackcrit],
say on particular forms of cultural resistance
shown by those of black Caribbean heritage, or
particular fears or low expectations that white
teachers have of black bodies or hostilities to
black countercultures.
Sewell opposes decolonising the curriculum, but
Olusogu [sic] objected to loose and inaccurate
references to slavery, which also marked the
remarks of Kemi Badenoch. History is being
sanitised in the role of the British Empire and
distorted. Antiracist initiatives by contrast have
tried to 'highlight the positive contribution of
non-Western cultural and intellectual traditions'
and 'highlight efforts to struggle against slavery
and colonialism' (480). The point is to get all
learners to think critically about past
injustices. What is described as '"reparative
futures"' seems to mean 'exploring the
possibilities for developing a more inclusive
sense of British identities based on the critical
engagement with the past… Intercultural dialogue
and understanding', far more than just simple
diversity of the kind involved in Sewell about
recognising the Indian origin of British words.
Sewell talks about powerful knowledge, but this is
'Eurocentric in its content' not objective, and
emerged in a particular historical social context.
Thus 'whereas Western science, for example
continues to play a crucial role in the fight
against poverty and disease, it has also been
complicit in the development of eugenics… And in
the development of technologies that have
contributed to human conflict and environmental
destruction'. And there has also been 'the process
of "epistemicide" by which De Sousa Santos means
the destruction and expropriation of other
indigenous, non-Western ways of knowing the world'
[see Scheurich and
Young] . The curriculum should be enriched
by drawing attention to these insights. This is
not an argument from relativism but a recognition
that these insights are valuable especially in
'identifying and solving different kinds of
sustainability challenges' (481).
The Report ignores the 'vast amount of evidence'
(481) about how schools can effectively tackle
racism and close the attainment gap. The whole
school approach is particularly valuable
recognising the multidimensional nature of racism
and its ubiquity. There should be leadership that
acknowledges racism, takes racial and cultural
justice seriously, has zero tolerance for
underachievement of all groups, tackles racism in
school policies, does not adopt colourblindness,
pursues effective monitoring and creates a safe
learning environment so that learners can engage
with issues of race and ethnicity. There should be
effective data to track attainment and which
identifies successful practice and challenges
stereotypes. A curriculum is required that
reflects the diversity of British society and also
equips learners to form an accurate view of the
colonial past. Black and minority ethnic parents
should be engaged and represented on governing
boards. Teacher education pursued that engages
with conscious and unconscious bias and also
explains the nature of racism.
[But again this assumes a great political priority
on tackling cultural racism especially as it
affects black Caribbean kids, as a targeted
initiative, and Sewell's case is that the policies
need to be aimed at everyone, if ony to do
regional levelling up, so it is hard to
justify the argument that black Caribbean kids are
a particular priority and so on]
Sewell fails to identify and tackle racism and so
it 'can be seen to perpetuate rather than
challenge white supremacy in education' (481), but
it does offer new challenges for anti-racists.
They need to specify more clearly what they mean
by institutional racism. They should draw together
work on conscious and unconscious processes and
the effects of colourblind policies. They should
deepen research and understanding
.
They should sack all the essentially negative
views of decolonising the curriculum, and
generally try to make the struggle against racism
more positive, perhaps they should 'articulate a
new "planetary humanism"' (482) a positive
recognition of diversity and how these intersect
with class and gender identities. We find this in
the speeches of visionary leaders like Mandela or
Martin Luther King. This is much broader than the
narrow idea about what it is to be British. The
should engage with other forms of injustice like
class and gender. This should enable reflection on
the traumas of the past and links with existing
inequalities. Countries recovering from
colonialism might be examined here
The fragmentation and inequalities in the current
educational system do not help. Research is needed
on how these provide barriers to attainment for
differently racialised groups, as a 'counter
hegemonic strategy' aimed at creating a more just
institutions. Tackling racism and other forms of
inequality 'are not mutually exclusive' for
example 'where schools have applied a whole school
approach to tackling racial and ethnic
disparities, this is benefited all learners
'[because institutions have developed
interventions based on understanding the needs of
all learners — references to a range of work here
including his own] educators leaders parents and
learners need to recognise the complex ways in
which injustice works and to be engaged as active
agents in addressing them.
The curriculum is a key area. The Eurocentric
nature of the curriculum has to be challenged and
knowledge made more representative. This will also
make it more representative of future challenges.
Past histories will be better recognised. This
would be much broader than the idea of British
values. Epistemic justice is also required, 'the
need to increase access to the curriculum for
groups who have historically been disadvantaged in
gaining such access' (483). [Apparently] Stone,
drawing on Gramsci argued that black learners
should use education to realise meaningful change
by first getting to grips with powerful knowledge,
accessing the mainstream curriculum, and this is
already popular among black Caribbean communities
and finds itself behind demands for extra tuition
among Indian, Chinese and Muslim communities [so
they don't want indigenous knowledge?].
We need a new radical politics galvanising racial
and minority communities, grassroots and community
activism, building on the experience of antiracist
and multicultural projects, a new radical
pluralist politics, despite Sewell. Pretty much
same old same
|
|