Dr. Gurnam Singh, Principal Lecturer in Social Work and National Teaching Fellow, 2009

1.  Academic Practice Seminar Series - Derby UniversityMonday 25 February Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) attainment: interventions and next steps Dr. Gurnam Singh, Principal Lecturer in Social Work and National Teaching Fellow, 2009

2. Background – Race, Ethnicity and HE • Phase 1 – Pre 1990 – ‘state of ignorance’ – colour blind – cultural deficit. • Phase 2 – 1990’s – Widening participation – disproportionate numbers of BME students HE, but largely in New Universities. Emphasis on removing barriers to entry. • Phase 3 – 2000 to present – Gradual uncovering and recognition of a ‘problem’ – evidence base gradually begins to build (Connors, et al (2003) and (2004); Law et al (2004); Tolley and Rundle, (2006); Broecke and Nicholls, (2007) HEA/ECU (2008), Fielding et al (2008) ECU (2010), NUS, (2011), Singh, (2011), HEA/ECU (2011).

3. Defining the problem • ‘Relative to White students, those from every non-White ethnic group are less likely to obtain good degrees and less likely to obtain first class degrees…The odds of an Asian student being awarded a good degree were half of those of a White student being awarded a good degree, whereas the odds of a Black student being awarded a good degree were a third of those of a White student being awarded a good degree’ (Richardson, 2007: 10).

4. BME student under-attainment – why? • Traditional (‘commonsense’) view – They lack ability, their culture is detrimental, their lifestyle is relatively dysfunctional/chaotic, they have problems with authority, generally they have lower ability and tend to segregate themselves off from other students, they need to change. • Liberal view – BME students experience more disengagement, alienation, lack confidence and self-esteem, experience negative attitudes from some staff and student and they possess low levels of social and cultural capital. I am prepared to help them if required. • Radical view – Racism, , Eurocentric curriculum, low teacher expectations, treated more harshly than white students, ghettoisation/segregation/streaming of students along ethnicity, labelling/‘othering’, poorer material conditions, symbolic violence, their capabilities are not recognise. The pedagogy and institution needs to change. • All of the above in which case we need to develop a theory of cause and effect. Reflective Question – Which one of these perspectives best reflects your: • Personal view • Institutional view

5. Equality in higher education: statistical report 2011 Part 2: Students http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/files/equality-in-he-stats-11-part-2-students.doc/at_download/file • The the proportion of UK-domicile BME students has increased from 14.9% in 2003/04 to 18.1% in 2009/10

6. The picture confusing? • Problem with ethnic categorisation. Categories can not really tell us anything about individual experience. • We make distinction between ‘home’ and oversees students • Super-diversity (Vertovec, 2007) • Focussing on categories and student achievement/performance may actually take our attention away from ‘institutional structures and pedagogical practices’ (Ahmed, 2007) • Reduces the historical struggle of justice and equality (political and pedagogical) to an endless wild goose chase for the ‘absolute truth’. • We can get lost in the numbers game.

7. Disparities in Student Attainment (DiSA) – HEA Funded NTF project –Wolverhampton and Coventry www.wlv.ac.uk/disa4 Key questions: • Conceptual - What do we mean by a BME student (real or statistical entity) ? • Evidential - What is the nature/scale of the attainment gap (institution, department, course and module level)? • Evidential - Why do BME students do less well than ‘white’ students i.e. how can we explain the gap in degree attainment (Folk versus evidence based explanations)? • Pedagogical - What can we do to close the gap?

8. DISA: Disparities in Student Attainment - HEA Funded NTF projectwww.wlv.ac.uk/disa Research Stream 1: Institutional Data Identifying modules with no disparity – why? Research Stream 2: Student Data What students say help or impede their achievement Research Stream 3: Action Research with Staff Evaluation of interventions identified by staff to eradicate the gap Research Stream 4: Dissemination Good Degree Guide, Vox Pops, Postcards, Framework, Methodology

9. http://www.wlv.ac.uk/default.aspx?page=25151

10. Key factors behind success STUDENT PERCEPTION LECTURERS PERCEPTION POOR STUDENT MOTIVATION - Students don’t work hard enough They don’t ask for help They don’t read assignment brief LOW STUDENT SELF CONFIDENCE Students are not willing to take risk – almost seems they are afraid to use their own ideas and thoughts WEAK SOCIAL/CULTURAL CAPITAL BASE Not enough reading knowledge of professional practice • ESSENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS between : • - Staff and student • - Student and staff • - Students and University support services • RESPECT between - lecturers and Students • RECOGNITION of student effort • Previous skills/Life skills • Recognition of difficult social circumstances • USEFUL FEEDBACK • Access to Resources • Fair and clear Assessment • Academically challenging experience

12. Theorising the data • Whilst some factors might have greater effect than others, disparity is likely to be a consequence of a variety of structural, situational, individual factors. • Solutions therefore need to be varied and targeted. • Although one may have a romantic view of the transformative power of education, in reality there are some factors that even the best teachers in the world cannot overcome. • For some disadvantaged students success might be about surviving!

13. Key structural factors • Class origins and reproduction of human/social capital – (Bourdieu, Putnam, Halpern) • Family and community norms and values – (Coleman) • Ethnicity, gender and social capital – (Modood, Connor et al) • Access to material resources and social class (Cole) • Ideology, Racialisation, Interpelation – (Lacan, Althusser, Hall).

14. Pedagogy of love – Humanising learning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTghEXKNj7g Teacher expectation impacts student performance (observer-expectancy effect) 4 factors 1.Warmer Climate – verbal and non verbal 2.Input factor – teachers teach more. 3.Response opportunity – call on and encourage high performers 4. Feedback – more positive and differentiated feedback

15. Pedagogy of love – Transformative Learning • Humility • Courage • Tolerance • Lovingness

16. Conclusion - Facilitating the ‘Good Degree Student’ Avoid negative labelling Minimise Pygmalion effect – e.g. blind marking Raise aspirations Challenge stereotypical thinking Be an interlocutor See students as individual Be a good communicator Re-engage the disengaged Foster good relationship with all students Nurture intellectuality Open up those who have been closed down Develop Critical and post-race pedagogy Encourage interactive relationship Show that you want to teach

17. Ultimately our conception of humanity and worth will impact how we respond to the issue of BME attainment. "A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop - a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. (Matthew 13:1-9)

18. Some questions for reflection • How do we respond to the demographic shifts that render the categories increasingly unstable (Super diversity) • We have been overwhelmed by the number of students, particularly those designated ‘black’ who find ethnic monitoring categories uncomfortable – what do we make of this? • How can we engage with differences without perpetuating stereotypes or giving undue significance to ‘raciological’ thinking and classifications? • Does this require an epistemological break? • Anti-racism to post-racism. • Cultural sensitivity to contextual sensitivity. • How can we break the perception that inclusivity or widening participation is associated lowering of standards? • How can we promote inclusivity as a professional and institutional virtu?