International Studies in Sociology of Education

ISSN: 0962-0214 (Print) 1747-5066 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riss20

Equal Treatment and Cultural Difference in Multi‐ethnic Schools: a critique of the teacher ethnocentrism theory Peter Foster To cite this article: Peter Foster (1992) Equal Treatment and Cultural Difference in Multi‐ethnic Schools: a critique of the teacher ethnocentrism theory, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 2:1, 89-103, DOI: 10.1080/0962021920020106 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0962021920020106

Published online: 09 Jul 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 534

View related articles

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riss20 Download by: [37.44.207.59]

Date: 16 January 2017, At: 02:58

International Studies in Sociology of Education, Volume 2, No.1,1992

Equal Treatment and Cultural Difference in Multi-ethnic Schools: a critique of the teacher ethnocentrism theory PETER FOSTER Crewe & Alsager College of Higher Education, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT This paper considers claims that students from minority ethnic backgrounds are treated less favourably than their white peers in schools because their teachers make negative, ethnocentric judgements of their behaviour. The paper challenges the empirical basis of these claims and the implicit model of good practice on which they are based. It goes on to examine some of the implications for teacher practice of this discussion. The aim is to try to clarify the meaning of equality of treatment in schools, a right we expect all citizens to enjoy, and to examine the way this principle should be operationalised by teachers in multi-ethnic schools. Basic citizenship rights in the area of education lead us to expect that no child should be treated in a less favourable way in the school they attend because of their social class background, 'race', ethnic group or gender. In other words, we expect children from different social groups to be treated equally. However, in recent years teachers have frequently been criticised for treating children from minority 'racial' and ethnic groups, particularly those from Afro/Caribbean backgrounds, less favourably than children from majority groups, thus contravening their basic right to equal treatment. A number of inequalities of treatment have been highlighted. First, is the idea that teachers have negative, stereotyped views and low academic expectations of Afro/Caribbean children and are therefore likely to treat them in an inferior way in the classroom. They are also, it is claimed, more likely to allocate them to low status groups in the school where their educational opportunities are restricted (see Foster, 1992b, for a review). Second, is the idea that the curriculum of schools does not adequately reflect the culture of Afro/Caribbean children. It is suggested that they are disadvantaged as a result because they fail to develop their cultural identity 89

Peter Foster

and self-esteem, and because they are more likely to experience school as alienating (see, for example, Parekh, 1986). A more radical version of this idea suggests that Afro/Caribbean children are disadvantaged because the knowledge and skills valued in school are derived from the dominant, white, middle class culture. They are assessed in terms of this dominant culture and their cultural differences, for example in terms of language, are viewed as deficits (see, for example, Brittan & Maynard, 1984). I have discussed these two forms of inequality elsewhere (Foster, 1990a,b, 1992a,b). In this paper I want to examine a third form of inequality, which in fact has close links with the second. [1] A number of studies in recent years have found that a relatively high proportion of Afro/Caribbean young people are suspended or expelled from school or referred to special units for children with behavioural problems (CRE, 1985; Wright, 1986; The Times Educational Supplement, 9 September 1988; ELEA, 1990; Cooper et al, 1991; NCC, 1991). Other studies conducted within schools have found disproportionate numbers of Afro/Caribbean students involved in school and classroom disciplinary procedures (Green, 1983; Wright, 1986; Gillborn, 1990). Inequality of treatment within schools has frequently been seen as a major cause. What has been argued is that teachers' conceptions of acceptable student behaviour are ethnocentric and as a result the cultural norms of Afro/Caribbean children are perceived as deviant. Afro/Caribbean children are therefore more likely to be seen by teachers as deviants, more likely to be reprimanded and punished, more likely to have estranged or conflictual relationships with their teachers, more likely to be allocated to low status groups for behavioural reasons, and more likely to be suspended or expelled from school. An early example of this theory is contained in Tomlinson's (1979) study of the process of referral to schools for the 'educationally sub-normal' in the late 1970s. Tomlinson argued that referrals were based in part on behavioural criteria and that "West Indian' students were unequally treated because teachers and psychologists made their judgements on the basis of the cultural norms of dominant groups in society. [2] They tended to see West Indian students and their families as deficient because they deviated from these norms. The work of Mac an Ghaill (1988) provides a more recent example. One of Mac an Ghaill's (1988) claims is that the teachers in the multi-ethnic secondary school he studied judged their Afro/Caribbean students negatively because they did not conform to "the dominant values of the school" which teachers assumed were "intrinsically worthwhile". He suggests that the teachers adopted a "monoculturalist perspective" which failed to recognise the different experiences and values of minority students. But perhaps the clearest example of the teacher ethnocentrism theory is contained in a recent ethnographic study of a multi-ethnic secondary school by David Gillborn (1990). He argues that the over-representation of 90

A Critique of the Teacher Ethnocentricism Theory

Afro/Caribbean students in classroom and school disciplinary procedures (they were more likely to be criticised, placed on report and given detentions) was the product of teachers' •ethnocentric interpretations' of students' behaviour. Drawing on the idea of Becker (1952) he suggests that the teachers operated with implicit conceptions of the 'ideal client', which were based on particular cultural norms and values. As a result they tended to view much of the behaviour of Afro/Caribbean students as deviant. [3] He claims that "... in the day-to-day life of the school almost any display of Afro/Caribbean ethnicity was deemed inappropriate and was controlled ..." (p. 29). The children's ethnicity was 'devalued' and this created tension and conflict between teachers and pupils. [4] A further example of the theory appears in a recent study of student exclusions from Nottingham secondary schools by the Advisory and Inspection Service of Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC 1991). The authors of the report discovered that Afro/Caribbean students were over three times more likely to be excluded from school than might have been expected given their numbers in the school population. Although their explanation is not clearly articulated, they appear to suggest that a key factor was teachers' lack of awareness and intolerance of the culturally different behaviour of their Afro/Caribbean students and their belief that such students should conform to "white majority cultural expectations" (p. 113). [5] Essentially all these studies claim that Afro/Caribbean students were treated unequally because teachers subscribed to particular conceptions of acceptable behaviour which did not recognise their cultural differences. As a result they interpreted students' behaviour as deviant and so failed to provide them with an equally supportive educational environment. In short the students were victims of teacher ethnocentrism. The researchers do not suggest that teachers were overtly racist in their treatment of Afro/Caribbean student? (at least in these parts of their studies), but they claim that their attachment to routine, monocultural norms and expectations of classroom behaviour led to "actions which were racist in their consequences" (Gillborn, 1990, p. 44). These studies have been well received by a number of anti-racist researchers and campaigners who see in them evidence of what is often termed 'institutionalised racism'. Eggleston, for example, reviewing Gillborn's work for The Times Educational Supplement (25 January 1991) commented: Gillbom has no difficulty in showing that the school's response to both Southern Asians and Afro/Caribbeans had strong elements of racism and highly negative effects. Indeed, after this report, any lingering doubts that school racism is no more than a left-wing fantasy must surely be eliminated.

However, in my view the arguments and evidence put forward by these studies are not so convincing. In fact the teacher ethnocentrism theory they 91

Peter Foster

propose suffers from a number of serious weaknesses which I want to discuss in this paper. First, I feel the empirical basis of the theory is weak. The studies quoted above provide very little evidence to support their claims, and the evidence they do present does not, in my view, offer convincing support. Second, I feel that the model of good practice that underpins the theory is not always justifiable or desirable. After a consideration of these weaknesses I will outline the implications of my discussion for teacher practice, particularly for the way in which the principle of equal treatment can and should be interpreted and operationalised in multi-ethnic schools.

The Empirical Basis of the Teacher Ethnocentrism Theory I will restrict my discussion here to the three more recent studies mentioned above, beginning with the work of Mac an Ghaill (1988). This author puts forward his claim that the teachers' response to the behaviour of Afro/Caribbean students was ethnocentric in a section of his book dealing with the curriculum of his study school. He claims that the content of the formal curriculum was ethnocentric (see the second form of inequality above) and backs up his claim with quotations from five teachers who express reservations about the idea of a multi-cultural curriculum. This evidence is clearly inadequate to support a claim about the content of the whole school curriculum. What is really needed to assess Mac an Ghaill's claim is detail of actual curriculum content from syllabuses, schemes of work, teaching materials or classroom observation, but Mac an Ghaill provides little of this. The only place he does provide such detail is when he concedes that the 'liberal' teachers in the school had introduced some multi-cultural content. He also mentions that a 'multi-cultural unit' had been invited into the school to develop multi-cultural teaching materials. These points must surely shed doubt on his claim of ethnocentric curriculum content. Mac an Ghaill then deals with school policy on language. He argues that the 'authoritarian' teachers [6] regarded Afro/Caribbean Creole as "a form of sub-standard speech" and described it "amongst themselves" as "aggressive, babbling, loud, meaningless, argumentative and jabbering" (p. 55). However, he provides no evidence from staff talk "amongst themselves" to support these claims. The only evidence he does give is a quotation from an interview with one teacher who presents a rather negative view of Afro/Caribbean language, but who mainly focuses on the problems students have in using 'standard' English rather than on the sub-standard nature of Creole. Again this evidence is inadequate. And again Mac an Ghaill concedes that the 'liberal' teachers "had created a more positive language policy which involved the use of Creole in drama, mime, story telling and writing" (p. 55). However, he makes further claims here. He argues that the policy of the liberal teachers had little impact on the English syllabus of the top stream and the use of Creole solely with the lower streams meant it was 92

A Critique of the Teacher Ethnocentricism Theory

associated with low status. But again he gives no evidence to support these claims. Finally Mac an Ghaill discusses the 'hidden curriculum'. In support of his view that the school was dominated by a narrow monocultural set of values and behavioural expectations he claims that assemblies remained "essentially Christian" (despite "token gestures" to Sikhism, Hinduism and Islam)j that Rastafarianism was "never formally acknowledged", that many of the "largely secular" teachers were "ignorant" of students' religions, and that many teachers criticised students' lack of competitive spirit. However, the only supporting evidence he provides is a short extract from a talk by the headteacher in an assembly asking boys not to wear badges in school unless they were scout or boys' brigade badges, and a conversation between three teachers complaining about student behaviour in internal exams. Again this evidence is far from adequate to support the multiple claims made. Thus in my view Mac an Ghaill's argument that the teachers he studied made ethnocentric judgements of the cultural norms of Afro/Caribbean students is largely unsupported by evidence. His argument is therefore far from convincing. Turning now to the study by Gillborn (1990). As with the previous study the evidence Gillborn gives to support his case that teachers' ideas of acceptable behaviour were ethnocentric and biased against Afro/Caribbean students is very weak. [7] One might have expected examples of teachers' conceptions of acceptable behaviour from interviews or conversations with a representative sample of teachers, together with an analysis of the ways in which they could be considered ethnocentric. One might also have expected Gillborn to present a representative sample of displays of Afro/Caribbean cultural behaviour from students, with examinations of the teachers' interpretations and behavioural responses. However, Gillborn provides little of this. His case rests upon an unsupported assertion that teachers' conceptions of behaviour are ethnocentric, and upon a discussion of responses to one example of the behaviour of Afro/Caribbean boys which is held to be typical of responses to all displays of Afro/Caribbean culture. The example he uses is the boys' distinctive way of walking ("with seemingly exaggerated swinging of the shoulders and a spring in the step" (p. 27)). Gillborn makes two claims here. First, that the way of walking was a display of Afro/Caribbean culture (and therefore, by implication, worthy of respect, a point I will discuss below). One problem with such a claim is that it treats behaviour as simply the product of ethnic culture. But the origins of behaviour are much more complex than this. There are multiple cultural influences on behaviour, including social class and youth cultures. The way of walking may have been, in part, the product of these other influences. Moreover, behaviour is not just the product of culture. It involves strategic action where cultural characteristics may be used in different ways to achieve different ends. So in examining and assessing teachers' responses we would 93

Peter Foster

need to take account of how the way of walking was used by Afro/Caribbean boys. Gillborn does not deal with these issues and treats the behaviour of the boys as unproblematically a product of Afro/Caribbean culture. Gillborn's second claim is that the way of walking was "always interpreted as in some way inappropriate by members of staff" (p. 28). But he gives no examples of teachers' interpretations or views of the way of walking from interviews or conversations to support this claim. Instead he relies on observations of teachers' responses to this way of walking, which he claims "frequently" involved students being criticised. But again Gillborn gives little evidence of this. He provides only one short example of an instance in which a teacher responded to such a style of walking as if it were deviant. This consists of an incident in which an Afro/Caribbean boy was "called out from a line of pupils entering the assembly hall and ordered to •Stand up straight' and 'walk properly'" (p. 28). However, it is not clear from the example that it was the particularly Afro/Caribbean style of walking (assuming it was an Afro/Caribbean style), rather than some other aspect of the student's demeanour, that the teacher was responding to. We need some information about the teacher's perception of the incident to allow us to make a judgement, but Gillborn does not provide this. This is the only example Gillborn gives of the teachers' responses to Afro/Caribbean students' way of walking. We have to take it on faith that this example is typical and that teachers 'always' interpreted the style of walking of Afro/Caribbean boys as deviant. However this seems implausible to me. My experience of teachers, particularly those working in multi-ethnic schools, leads me to the view that their interpretation of student behaviour is far more sophisticated than this. A particular way of walking might in some circumstances be interpreted as deviant, but this would very much depend on the social context of the act and other aspects of the student's verbal and non-verbal behaviour. So I would question Gillborn's generalisation on the basis of one (rather inadequate) example that the Afro/Caribbean way of walking was "without exception" regarded as "inappropriate to school". We surely require more evidence before we can accept this. I also find unconvincing his view that teachers' responses to this style of walking "reflected a more general tendency amongst staff to devalue anything which did not conform to their own (white) expectations and experience" (p. 29). Again we need some evidence to support this generalisation. However, Gillborn provides none, and therefore, in my view, his empirical claims, like those of Mac an Ghaill, are unsubstantiated and unconvincing. Of course we must also be wary about generalising from case studies like Mac an Ghaill's and Gillborn's to a wider population of schools and teachers. However, Eggleston (in the review quoted above) seems to assume that Gillborn's findings at least are indicative of a wider 'school racism'. He claims that Gillborn's "portrayal of racist attitudes and expectations has the authentic and unmistakable atmosphere of classroom reality". And Gillborn 94

A Critique of the Teacher Eihnocentricism Theory

himself implies that his study reveals more widespread patterns. In the conclusion of his book he entitles the summary of his case study: 'Inside Multi-ethnic Schools' (p. 199) (my emphasis) and throughout suggests his study school was typical of those attended by Afro/Caribbean students. But Gillborn gives us little information on which we could assess its typicality, and the same point applies to the study by Mac an Ghaill. The external validity of both studies must therefore be in doubt. Finally, let me briefly consider the report by the Inspection and Advisory Service of Nottinghamshire County Council which I referred to above. The claim here (although, as I pointed out earlier, explanatory claim and prescription are interwoven in the report) was that one factor explaining the over-representation of Afro/Caribbean students in school exclusions was teachers' rigid adherence to "white majority cultural expectations" (p. 113) and their ignorance of students' different cultural norms. However, the report gives no evidence of teachers' behavioural expectations, nor of teachers' responses to students' culturally different behaviour, nor of the supposed link with student exclusions. So again the claim of teacher ethnocentrism is unsubstantiated. Thus I think we can see that the empirical basis of the claims made in these three studies is extremely weak. In my view therefore the theory that teacher ethnocentrism results in the unequal treatment of Afro/Caribbean students in schools remains speculative and unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. The Value Basis of the Teacher Ethnocentrism Theory The teacher ethnocentrism theory is clearly based on a particular value position - the value of equal opportunity and equal treatment in schools. It is also based on a model, derived from this value, of the way teachers ought to operate in multi-ethnic schools - in fact on a model of 'the ideal teacher'. However, this model is not made explicit or justified by those who put forward the theory. [8] In my view it is important that such a model is clarified so that its desirability can be debated. I suggest that what is expected of teachers in this model is that, in order to achieve equal treatment, they should give equal recognition, respect and value to the cultural norms of the different ethnic groups that they teach. Equal treatment is based here on a form of cultural pluralism in which the cultural norms of all ethnic groups are equally valued - or at least given a basic minimum value such that they are not 'devalued' and seen as deviant. Teachers ought therefore to recognise that expecting all students to conform to the same behavioural norms may be inappropriate because students come from different cultural backgrounds with different values and norms. Now is this model of good practice justifiable? In my view the answer to this is yes in some respects, but not in others. It is surely unreasonable for teachers to stick rigidly to narrowly monocultural ideas about acceptable 95

Peter Foster school behaviour which regard aU other cultural norms as deviant. So, for example, it would be unreasonable if teachers maintained a rigid policy on school uniform and refused to allow Muslim girls to wear trousers or headscarves in school. And it would be unreasonable if school rules were such that the speaking of minority languages and dialects amongst students in the school playground was regarded as deviant. The recognition and acceptance by teachers of these types of cultural difference is, I think most people would agree, reasonable and desirable in a tolerant, liberal, multi-cultural society. But the idea that different cultural norms can and should always be valued is questionable. Schools in liberal, democratic, industrial societies are established on the basis of certain values, and they deliberately seek to foster these values. These relate to broad societal values (Durkheim, 1961) such as democracy, equality of opportunity, effort and achievement, honesty, respect for others, etc., and to more narrowly educational values such as the pursuit of knowledge and skills of certain kinds, rational discussion, open-mindedness, independence of thought, etc. Assuming these values are justifiable and we accept them, if the cultural norms of a particular ethnic group (or segment of an ethnic group, since many ethnic groups are internally differentiated), or of a particular age, gender or social class group, encourage behaviour that clashes with these key values, or with the means we judge appropriate for achieving them, then it is difficult to see that it could or should be viewed sympathetically or tolerantly. To do so would be to abandon some of the basic societal and educational values which teachers are expected to foster. If, for example, different cultural norms result in students from a certain group being more noisy, aggressive, inattentive, prone to classroom disruption, or disrespectful of others, then teachers surely cannot, and should not, be expected to accept such behaviour just because it is the product of different cultural norms. [9] I think there is a possibility that this may be the case with some of the cultural norms of certain Afro/Caribbean students - especially those associated with male, youth, subcultural forms. The few descriptions that we have of such subcultures suggest that they may encourage behaviour that challenges certain key values and disrupts school life and the education of others. Furlong (1984), for example, provides a description of the culture of a group of Afro/Caribbean boys in a comprehensive school which he argues derived in part from the cultural forms of male life in the Caribbean. The boys' culture was characterised by an "intensive verbal form of interaction", a concern with "hardness", "masculinity" and "style", and an interest in dub music. Much of the boys' school time was spent socialising and talking with friends in lessons, on the corridors and around the school. To do this the boys exploited loopholes in school organisation to "create the 'social space' for their particular group life". They arrived late for lessons and left early, they wandered into other teachers' lessons to chat with their friends, or they made excuses to wander out of lessons to "see who was hanging around". 96

A Critique of the Teacher Ethnocentridsm Theory

Their "hardness" was demonstrated by "continual dialogue", "running jokes", the use of Patois and "cool talk", and flouting school rules. When challenged by teachers, in what were considered inappropriate ways, they "would withdraw their support and become openly hostile, aggressive and even violent" (p. 223). Not surprisingly, their "culture of resistance" frequently brought them into conflict with their teachers. We get a similar picture from Mac an Ghaill (1988). He describes a group of Afro/Caribbean students in a boys' secondary school that he calls "the Rasta Heads". The boys had rejected many school values and were a constant source of trouble for their teachers. They: ...systematically arrived late for lessons, disturbed other students by demanding their seats at the back of the classrooms, continually interrupted teachers, tried to cause arguments, talked incessantly throughout lessons and slept when asked to complete written work. They did little homework, never prepared for school tests and refused to attend annual examinations, (p. 99)

like the boys Furlong studied, they were concerned with an image of toughness and style, and with socialising through talk. They often used distinctively Caribbean forms of behaviour to challenge teachers' authority. For example, they responded to teachers' reprimands by "sucking teeth" or giving "bad looks"; and classroom conversations were often conducted in Patois as a "mechanism for white exclusion". Gillborn (1990), whilst noting a variety of adaptions to school life amongst the Afro/Caribbean students he studied, also describes a subculture of 'resistance' amongst a small group of Afro/Caribbean boys. They "revelled in their physical prowess", cultivated a tough reputation, and, as a result, were frequently in conflict with their teachers. And interestingly they too sometimes used aspects of their ethnicity to challenge teachers' authority. For example the style of walking, that Gillborn claims teachers unnecessarily regarded as deviant, could sometimes be used as a way of "resisting" teachers' authority (see Gillborn's example on p. 28 of his book). [10] These case studies may of course be untypical[ll] and they may therefore present a distorted picture of the cultural norms of Afro/Caribbean young people. Nevertheless they do provide an indication of at least some aspects of Afro/Caribbean youth cultural forms or of the cultural forms of some Afro/Caribbean groups. And these are clearly cultural forms that clash with the values and norms of school life. It is very difficult to see how teachers could, or why they should, value these aspects of Afro/Caribbean culture and respond to them in a tolerant non-ethnocentric way. Yet this is what the advocates of the teacher ethnocentrism theory appear to suggest. In my view this notion of what Jeffcoate (1984) terms "strong cultural pluralism" cannot be justified. I find myself in basic agreement with Jeffcoate, who argues that there must be limits to the extent to which teachers can respect and value cultural differences. Drawing on the work of Zee (1980), he maintains that "full-blooded" pluralism based on 'strong' cultural 97

Peter Foster

relativism is "particularly inappropriate as a theoretical basis for a public system of education" (p. 121). He argues that the curriculum and organisation of schools must be based on certain core values derived from what Zee terms "transcultural criteria of rationality" and "right conduct". These include several of the values I mentioned above. The point surely is that teachers can be expected to recognise and accept cultural norms amongst their students that do not clash with or threaten the basic societal and educational values they set out to encourage. But they should not be expected to recognise and accept those that do clash. And this may be the case with some aspects of minority cultures. In short there are limits to cultural pluralism. It seems to me that what is important is that teachers establish rules, norms of behaviour, and indeed conceptions of the 'ideal student', which are derived from basic, justifiable societal and educational values. These rules, norms and conceptions ought therefore to be relevant and necessary for the encouragement of such values and they should be applied equally to all students. It follows that charges of unequal treatment on the grounds of ethnocentrism or cultural bias can only be justified if rules and norms are unnecessary or irrelevant. The major problem with the studies considered above is that they do not demonstrate that the rules and norms that they claim placed Afro/Caribbean students at a disadvantage were unnecessary or irrelevant, and their criticisms of teachers are based upon a model of the ideal teacher that is not, and in my view cannot be, totally justified. In the above discussion I do not wish to imply that the existing values fostered in schools, or the norms and conceptions of the 'ideal student' deriving from them, should inevitably be accepted or viewed as beyond dispute. Clearly they must be open to question and debate. Indeed one of the advantages of a multi-cultural society is that it encourages such debate. I also do not wish to imply that teachers alone should make decisions about what are appropriate values. Parents, governors, students and others in the wider community should be involved in debate and in the decision-making process. Such decisions may sometimes be difficult and may involve tension and conflict. But it is important that decisions are made about appropriate values and are made on rational grounds. It is also important that we do not simply dismiss existing values, on the grounds that they are 'white' or 'middle class' or features of the 'dominant culture'. Implications for Teacher Practice What implications does this discussion have for teachers' practice and the operationalisation of the value of equal treatment in schools? The teacher ethnocentrism theory does draw attention to the danger of teachers unnecessarily viewing the cultural norms of minority groups as deviant. Clearly, profound inequalities in treatment could result from such perceptions. The recent treatment of two Muslim girls in a school in Greater 98

A Critique of the Teacher Ethnocentricism Theory

Manchester is a case in point. They were unnecessarily excluded from school because the wearing of headscarves was prohibited. Teachers should be aware of cultural differences and they should guard against ethnocentrism. They should be careful not to automatically or unnecessarily view the different cultural norms of their ethnic minority students as deviant. Where possible they should adjust their expectations and practices to take account of cultural diflferences.fi2] However, they cannot simply accept all cultural norms3 as the teacher ethnocentrism theory appears to imply. In the case of certain Afro/Caribbean boys this would seem to mean accepting disruption to lessons, lateness, and displays of physical toughness and aggression. Such policy and practice in the name of cultural pluralism and equal treatment are clearly absurd. The consequence would be profoundly anti-school and anti-educational. If the boys' behaviour also involved sexism and racism (cf. Willis, 1977), as it occasionally did amongst some of the students in the school I studied (Foster, 1990a), then accepting it would also be profoundly anti-equal opportunities. Moreover, accepting these types of cultural norm might help to prepare Afro/Caribbean students for the social world of street life and the 'ghetto', but it would clearly deny them the opportunity to develop the social and academic skills required to compete equally in mainstream society or, it should be stressed, to engage in a constructive critique of that society. There is also the danger that teachers who accept the teacher ethnocentrism theory and are keen to implement policies on multi-culturalism and anti-racism may be afraid to criticise any aspect of the behaviour of their ethnic minority students (or their parents) for fear of being seen to be ethnocentric or racist. Alternatively they may be reluctant to demand certain standards of behaviour or work because they feel they are based on 'white middle class norms'. I remember a teacher in the school I researched (Foster, 1990a) who was committed to multi-culturalism and anti-racism, explaining that he sometimes felt guilty about imposing "white middle class values and view of the world" on students when he told them off for swearing in the classroom. The implication is that we have lower (in terms of the requirements of mainstream society) behavioural expectations for students of certain ethnic groups. The goal of equal opportunities would obviously not be well served by such an approach. [13] As I have argued above, teachers ought to establish rules, norms and conceptions of the ideal student that are based on the key values they wish to foster. Teachers, with governors, parents, students and others, clearly have to decide, following debate and discussion, what these values are and what rules and norms are relevant, necessary and justifiable in terms of them. This may be fairly easy in some cases. For example, I think most people would accept the value of settling disputes by rational discussion rather than physical violence and agree that rules prohibiting violence in schools are relevant and necessary. But in other cases it is not so easy to decide. Not 99

Peter Foster

everyone would agree that deference to authority figures is a value worth striving for and some might therefore reject rules based upon such a value as irrelevant and unnecessary. Or most people might accept that self-disciplined, independent study is a value, but might not agree that a rule specifying three hours homework per night was relevant and necessary to encourage this value. Difficult decisions obviously have to be made. In their day-to-day practice in schools teachers have to decide whether students' cultural norms and behaviour are acceptable in terms of the relevant and necessary rules and norms that have been established. This, as I have already suggested, depends in part on the nature of the norm or behaviour. But it will also depend on the social context in which the behaviour occurs. For example, the use by students of minority languages and dialects might be acceptable in some contexts, but not in others. As I have already mentioned in the playground or amongst peers in friendly, social interaction such languages would be perfectly acceptable. And in certain classroom contexts teachers might want to encourage students to use their mother tongue - perhaps especially in the early years in order to ease transition to school, or if meaning could be more effectively conveyed. But if the object of a lesson was that students practice and develop skills in 'standard' English then the use of minority languages and dialects would be inappropriate and would contravene relevant and necessary norms. Their use in this context might therefore be justifiably regarded as deviant. (Although we would expect teachers to communicate this in a sensitive way so that the student did not feel their language in itself was seen as deviant.) Whether cultural norms and behaviour are acceptable will also depend in part on the way they are used and their intended meaning. If, for example students use aspects of their culture to challenge teacher authority or disrupt school life or abuse others, this would surely be unacceptable and might be justifiably regarded as deviant. Teachers obviously have to assess and take account of student intentions and how they are using their ethnicity when deciding how to respond to their behaviour. Of course in these cases it is not the cultural norm or behaviour itself that is seen as deviant, but its use in a particular context or with a particular meaning. Teachers have the doubly difficult job of deciding in which contexts cultural displays are .appropriate or inappropriate and also of inferring correctly the meaning of such displays. This job requires that teachers develop their knowledge of different cultures, of the ways those cultures are changing and developing, and also of the ways that culture is used by students. It also requires that they apply their knowledge sensitively and with clarity of purpose. Conclusion In this paper I have argued that there is little empirical support for the theory that teachers make ethnocentric judgements of the behaviour of 100

A Critique of the Teacher Ethnocentricism Theory

Afro/Caribbean students and on this basis treat them less favourably. More importantly I have argued that the evaluative criteria implicit in the theory are not defensible in certain important respects. I have also suggested that the implications of the theory for school policy and practice may not always be desirable. Equal treatment does require teachers to accept and value some cultural differences and adjust their practices accordingly. In this sense they should not treat students from different ethnic backgrounds 'the same'. But it does not require that they accept and value all cultural differences. Perhaps more than anything, equal treatment requires that rules and norms of behaviour are relevant and necessary for the pursuit of justifiable societal and educational values and that all students are treated equally on the basis of these rules and norms. In this sense teachers should treat all students 'the same'. Correspondence

Peter Foster, Crewe & Alsager College of Higher Education, Hassall Road, Alsager, Cheshire ST7 2HL, United Kingdom. Notes [1] It is often argued that the three forms of unequal treatment are found together. Types two and three, especially, are sometimes referred to as 'institutionalised racism' (see Troyna & Williams, 1986 and Halstead, 1988, for discussions). [2] These ideas have their roots in what was termed in 'new sociology of education' (see Young, 1971) and the cultural Marxism of writers such as Bourdieu (1973). [3] Although he concedes that they behaved sensitively towards, and with considerable understanding of, their Asian students. [4] In both these studies (Mac an Ghaill, 1988, and Gillbom, 1990) the claim of teacher ethnocentrism is contained within broader analyses of teacher-student relationships in the multi-ethnic schools studied. It is perhaps more central to Gillborn's study. [5] This explanation appears in the final section of the report, which deals with recommendations for practice and change. As a result, explanation and prescription are somewhat confused. [6] These teachers are referred to elsewhere in the book as "the old disciplinarians". I am assuming they are the same group. Mac an Ghaill claims that 17 out of the 36 staff could be placed in this group. [7] I accept that the amount of evidence that Gillbom was able to present may have been constrained by the space available in a published work. This is a particular problem with ethnographic work. Even so I feel that far more evidence was required to justify the claims made, and, interestingly, no additional evidence is presented in the thesis on which the book was based (see Gillbom, 1987). [8] Hammersley (1991) has pointed out that much research in the sociology of education is implicitly evaluative, but fails to justify the values on which it is based. Elliot (1991) also comments that much educational research has criticised teachers for "a failure to live up to an ideal model of practice" (p. 47), which is rarely made explicit. [9] The same argument applies when considering whether teachers should respect and accede to the educational wishes of ethnic minority parents. Teachers cannot be expected to do so if these wishes conflict with core societal and educational values. The wishes of some Muslim

101

Peter Foster parents concerning the education of their daughters, for example, may conflict with the value of equal opportunities, as do those of some white parents. [10] There are clear similarities here with certain white working class youth cultures (see, for example, Willis, 1977) [11] There has been a tendency for researchers to focus on disaffected, anti-school, underachieving Afro/Caribbean boys and neglect those who are motivated, positive to school and achieve. The effect may be to encourage a particular stereotype of Afro/Caribbean youth which is inaccurate. There has also been a tendency to glamorise and over-sympathise with anti-school 'cultures of resistance' (see Hammersley & Atkinson's, 1983, comments on Willis, 1977). [12] There is a danger here that teachers may make assumptions about the characteristics of individual students on the basis of their ethnic background. Most cultural differences are probablistic, i.e. there is merely a greater likelihood of an ethnic group member having particular characteristics and not all members will share that characteristic. If teachers assume that all members do share the characteristic they may treat those who do not inappropriately. [13] There are parallels here with debates within social work. As Paul Gilroy recently commented in a radio interview, the effect of such ideas in this area was that: ...whole areas of polity became impossible to talk about... Child abuse didn't happen. 'Black people who bmtalised their children are doing so because they have Victorian cultural conceptions of discipline'. This kind of absurdity was entrenched and nobody, because of the kind of moralistic climate in which local authority anti-racism was conducted at that time, it became very difficult to answer these absurd arguments without the charge of being seen to be racist.... (quoted in BBC, 1991)

Acknowledgement I would like to thank Martyn Hammersley, contributors to the seminar at Westhill College, and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on earlier drafts on this paper. References BBC (1991) Fie on Four -- Trans-racial Adoptions, May. Becker, H. (1952) Social class variations in the teacher-pupil relationships, in B. R. Cosin et al (Eds) (1977) School and Society. London: Routledge & Regan Paul. Bourdieu, P. (1973) Cultural reproduction and social reproduction, in R. K. Brown (Ed.) Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change. London: Tavistock. Brittan, A. & Maynard, M. (1984) Sexism, Racism and Oppression. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Commission for Racial Equality (1985) Birmingham Local Education Authority and Schools: the referral and suspension of pupils. London: CRE. Cooper, P., Upton, G. & Smith, C. (1991) Ethnic minority and gender distribution among staff and pupils in facilities for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties in England and Wales, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12, pp. 77-94. Durkhein, E. (1961) Moral Education. Glencoe: The Free Press. Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Foster, P. (1990a) Policy and Practice in Multicultural and Anti-Racist Education: a case study of a multi-ethnic comprehensiveschool.London: Routledge. Foster, P. (1990b) Cases not proven: an evaluation of two studies of teacher racism, British Educational Research Journal, 16, pp. 335-348.

102

A Critique of the Teacher Ethnocentricism Theory Foster, P. (1992a) Some problems in establishing equal treatment in multi-ethnic schools, British Journal of Sociology, forthcoming. Foster, P. (1992b) Teacher attitudes and Afro/Caribbean educational attainment, Oxford Review of Education, forthcoming. Furlong, V. J. (1984) Black resistance in the liberal comprehensive school, in S. Delamont (Ed.) Readings on Interaction in the Classroom. London: Methuen. Gillborn, D . (1987) The negotiation of educational opportunity: the final years of compulsory schooling in a multi-ethnic inner-city comprehensive, PhD thesis, University of Nottingham. Gillbom, D . (1990) 'Race', Ethnicity and Education. London: Unwin Hyman. Green, P. A. (1983) Teachers' influence on the self-concept of pupils of different ethnic origins, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Durham. Halstead, M. (1988) Education, Justice and Cultural Diversity- Lewes: Falmer Press. Hammersley, M. (1991) A myth of a myth? An assessment of two ethnographic studies of option choice schemes, British Journal of Sociology, 42, pp. 61-94. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnography: principles in practice. London: Tavistock. Inner London Education Authority (1990) Suspensions and Expulsions for School - 1987-88 (RS 1198/88). London: ILEA. Jeffcoate, R. (1984) Ethnic Minorities and Education. London: Harper & Row. Mac an Ghaill, M. (1988) Young, Gifted and Black. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Nottinghamshire County Council (1991) Pupil Exclusions from Nottingham Secondary Schools. Nottingham: N C C . Parekh, B. (1986) The concept of multicultural education, in S. Modgil, G. K. Verna, K. Mallick & C. Modgil (Eds) Multicultural Education: the interminable debate. Lewes: Falmer Press. Tomlinson, S. (1979) Decision making in special education ESN(M): with some reference to children of immigrant parentage, PhD thesis, University of Warwick. Troyna, B. & Williams, J. (1986) Racism, Education and the State. Beckenham: Croom Helm. Willis, P. (1977) Learning to Labour how working class kids get working class jobs. Aldershot: Gower. Wright, C. (1986) School processes: an ethnographic study, in J. Eggleston, D . Dunn & M. Anjali (Eds) Education for Some: the educational and vocational experiences of 15-18 year old members of minority ethnic groups. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Young, M.F.D. (Ed.) (1971) Knowledge and Control: new directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier-Macmillan. Zee, P. (1980) Multicultural education: what kind of relativism is possible? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 14, pp. 77-86.

103