LA CONCLUSIÓN DEL GITA

According to Tomlinson (2008) during New Labour‘s term of office the needs of the ethnically mixed British society were not reflected in curriculum changes or teacher education, even if ‗citizenship‘ was introduced. Policies did not specifically cater for the needs of individual groups of children. The curriculum is generic and not focused on the individual needs of children from ethnic minority background. This is a contributing factor to the underachievement of African-Caribbean boys which can be classified as institutionalised racism. The nature of the National Curriculum which became statutory in 1988 has been heavily debated. The National Curriculum was proclaimed by Jones (1989) as being Eurocentric and nationalistic and not catering for diversity. According to Tomlinson (2005) under the Conservative government it reflected the historical legacy of imperialism. Even though New Labour has reformed the National Curriculum, Tomlinson (2005) argues that it is still ethnocentric and not catering adequately for diversity. She also argues that policies focus on having a national identity rather than cultural and racial equality. Tomlinson (2005) goes on to say that the policy of choice and diversity and targeting failing schools has had little success and has contributed to an exacerbated segregation and racial inequalities

42

because it is colour blind. The view held by Tomlinson (2005) is that because the National Curriculum is like this African-Caribbean boys‘ underachieve because of the lack of provision for their cultural and racial needs.

John (2006 p.21) argues that in the immediate aftermath of the last General Election ―those of us who had been in the struggle to improve educational outcomes for black and working class children for decades welcomed the new government‘s commitment to Education‖. John (2006) claims however that policies have not addressed issues to do with ethnic minority children and the fight goes on. The author asserts that the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report (Macpherson, 1999) pointed very clearly to the role of the National Curriculum, LEA's, schools and governors in preventing racism and reflecting the needs of diversity in society.

Hill and Cole (2001) argue that with a few exceptions, the hidden curriculum serves to reproduce educational, social and economic inequalities. Here the hidden curriculum is seen as procedures in schools, pastoral care and behavioural issues not directly specified as academic in the curriculum. The authors assert that the current National Curriculum is not adequately addressing the diverse educational needs of children in our society today and it is not addressing behavioural issues adequately. Thus there are barriers to learning for students in specific social groups where they do not get equal opportunities to the curriculum.

Muir and Smithers (2004 p.1) report that: ―failure of school systems and individuals within it to successfully engage with students of African-Caribbean origin has severely hindered them and contributed to massive underachievement‖. What is being said here is that schools do not meet the needs of ethnic minority students and that this is a contributory factor to their underachievement.

According to McGee Banks and Banks (1995), ‗equity pedagogy‘ is an essential component of multi-cultural education. They define equity pedagogy as teaching strategies and classroom environment that help children from diverse racial, ethnic and cultural groups attain the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to function effectively within, and help create and perpetuate, a just, humane and democratic society. The view held by McGee Banks and Banks (1995) is that it is not enough for

43

students to read and write and compute within the dominant cannon without learning to question its assumptions, paradigms and hegemonic characteristics. They argue that helping students to become reflective and active citizens of a democratic society is the essence of an equity pedagogy rather than one that merely prepare students to fit into society and to experience social class mobility structures which are characterised by pernicious class divisions and racial, ethnic and gender stratification are not helpful in building a democratic and just society. I agree with the view of McGee Banks and Banks (1995). It is only with ‗equity pedagogy‘ that the curriculum will be able to reflect the needs of all learners.

The conclusion drawn is that the National Curriculum is not catering for the needs of ethnic minority children. This provision does not cater for diversity or reflect the cultural needs of these students. However, it is recognised that the underachievement of African-Caribbean boys and other ethnic minority groups is a very complex problem. According to Gilborn and Mirza (2000) ―developing an educational agenda with regard to racial equality is clearly a priority‖. However the authors go on to say that the educational recommendations of the Lawrence Inquiry have been met by concerns about institutional racism on one hand, and confusion as to the way forward on the other. The authors further assert that most Local Education Authorities (LEA‘s) and schools lack clarity and direction when it comes to addressing inequalities of attainment between different ethnic groups. Gilborn and Mirza (2000) take the view that equality of opportunity is a vital issue of social and economic importance to the whole of society. They conclude that 75% of schools studied do not have a clear strategy to eradicate underachievement. Their report was published within months of the Macpherson (1999) report. The Macpherson (1999) report made clear recommendations to deal with institutionalised racism. However, Gilborn and Mirza (2000) clearly recognised that there was confusion and a lack of direction in dealing with underachievement. This suggests that even though the Macpherson (1999) report made recommendations that the strategies to address these were not adequately in place.

The conclusion that is arrived at is that despite the continued underachievement of African-Caribbean boys there has been very few education strategies under New

44

Labour‘s administration which attempted to cater for the needs of this group. This concurs with the view of John (2006) who claims the curriculum is white in every sense.

According to Tomlinson (2008) there is a muted debate over whether the school curriculum and pedagogy needs updating to fit a post-imperial globalised Britain. She asserts that in the twenty first century fierce arguments have continued about multiculturalism, integration and a ‗British‘ identity and the demographic segregation of minorities in towns and city areas; arguments about segregated schooling; over faith schools; about the continued lower achievement of some groups while others have progressed well, over the possible ethnic penalties young minorities suffer in the labour market; over the reasons for the alienation of some young minorities from education and from the wider society.

The National Curriculum is too prescribed. There is not enough room for teachers to be innovative and cater for individual needs of students. According to Tomlinson (2005) the very idea of a National Curriculum is inappropriate at a time of globalisation. This suggests that the National Curriculum does not cater adequately for diversity but rather focuses on differentiation. For example the different levels of abilities. According to Allen and Ainley (2007 p.63) ―the National Curriculum assumed the unproblematic existence of a unified national culture that could be imposed on all sections of society. It thus ignored the possibility that students might bring a variety of multicultural and different class experiences to school‖.

2.10 From New Labour to Conservative and Liberal Democratic Coalition