Institutional Racism

Individual vs Institutional Racism (Troyna & Williams, 1986)

AO1:

Individual racism: prejudice from specific teachers or staff.

Institutional racism: discrimination built into the routines, policies, and structures of schools and colleges.

AO2:

Institutional racism may be unconscious, yet it produces systematic disadvantage for ethnic minorities.

AO3 / Links:

Moves beyond blaming individual teachers → explains persistent ethnic achievement gaps.

Links to Critical Race Theory and the concept of racism as embedded in social structures.

Critical Race Theory & Locked-in Inequality

AO1:

Racism is deeply ingrained in society → not just individual acts.

Locked-in inequality (Roithmayr, 2003): past discrimination creates self-perpetuating disadvantage.

AO2 (Gillborn, 2008):

Ethnic inequality in education is so entrenched it becomes a “practically inevitable feature” of the system.

AO3 / Links:

Shows why policy changes alone may not remove inequality.

Connects to institutional racism, assessment bias, and marketisation.

Marketisation and School Selection (Gillborn, 1997; Moore & Davenport, 1990)

AO1:

Marketisation increases schools’ ability to select pupils, allowing negative stereotypes to influence admissions.

Ethnic minorities often disadvantaged in school choice → ethnic segregation.

AO2:

Primary reports used to screen out pupils with language difficulties.

Application forms complex for non-English speaking parents → fewer minority pupils enter top schools.

UK example: Commission for Racial Equality (1993) highlighted:

biased reports, racist interviews, lack of translated forms, low parental awareness.

AO3 / Links:

Shows structural discrimination affects opportunities from the start.

Ethnocentric Curriculum

AO1:

Curriculum reflects dominant (white, British) culture, ignoring minorities.

Examples:

Languages: few Asian languages taught (Troyna & Williams).

History: focuses on British empire, ignoring black and Asian histories ‘Little Englandism’ (Ball, 1994).

Literature & music largely European (David, 1993).

AO2:

Bernard Coard: portrays black people as inferior → lowers self-esteem → possible underachievement.

Criticisms: Indian and Chinese pupils still achieve above average; some argue low self-esteem is not universal (Stone, 1981).

AO3 / Links:

Illustrates institutional racism through the hidden curriculum.

Assessment and the ‘New IQism’ (Gillborn, 2008)

AO1:

Teacher-assessed measures and selection → biased outcomes.

‘New IQism’: teachers/policymakers assume potential is fixed and measurable.

AO2:

FSP (Foundation Stage Profile) replaced baseline assessments → black pupils now appeared to perform worse.

Teacher judgment + timing of assessment = stereotyping affects results.

Gifted and Talented: white pupils overrepresented vs. Black Caribbean/Black African pupils.

Lower tier exam entry: black pupils more likely to be entered → limits highest grades.

AO3 / Links:

Shows systematic disadvantage through assessment and opportunity.

Summary: Gillborn on Institutional Racism

AO1:

Race inequality is a central, constant feature of the education system.

Institutional racism affects:

1. Admissions & selection

2. Curriculum content

3. Assessment & exams

4. Access to opportunities

AO2 / AO3:

Racism does not require conscious intent → ‘locked-in’ and self-perpetuating.

Explains persistent achievement gaps even among high-achieving minorities.

Links to Critical Race Theory, Troyna & Williams, New IQism, and hidden curriculum debates.

Criticisms: Black Boys’ Underachievement

AO1:

Gillborn (Critical Race Theory) → institutional racism is main cause of underachievement, especially black boys.

AO2:

Critics (Sewell) argue:

Racism exists but is not strong enough to prevent individual success.

Focus should be on external factors: anti-school attitudes, peer pressure, lack of nurturing fathers.

AO3 / Links:

Challenges the idea that the education system alone produces failure.

Links to subcultural explanations and Sewell’s work on peer groups and street culture.

Criticisms: ‘Model Minorities’ (Indian & Chinese Achievement)

AO1:

Some ethnic minority pupils overachieve → Indian and Chinese students outperform the white majority.

Questions Gillborn’s claim of pervasive institutional racism.

AO2:

If the system were entirely racist, why would these groups succeed?

AO3 / Links:

Critiques the universality of institutional racism argument.

Links to material/cultural explanations, parental support, and Asian family structures.

Gillborn’s Response: Ideological Function of Model Minorities

AO1:

Model minority myth conceals institutional racism by portraying education as fair and meritocratic.

AO2:

Indian & Chinese success is seen as proof the system works, implying failure of others is due to cultural/individual deficits.

Ignores that even ‘successful’ minorities still face racism (e.g., harassment of Chinese pupils similar to Black Caribbeans).

AO3 / Links:

Shows how racism can be hidden by ideology, not just overt.

Connects to Critical Race Theory, hidden curriculum, and the ‘new IQism’.

Encourages examination of structural vs. individual factors in achievement.