{"id":2198,"date":"2023-03-27T07:54:27","date_gmt":"2023-03-27T07:54:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mpelembe.net\/?p=2198"},"modified":"2023-03-27T07:54:27","modified_gmt":"2023-03-27T07:54:27","slug":"how-black-children-in-englands-schools-are-made-to-feel-like-the-way-they-speak-is-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mpelembe.net\/index.php\/how-black-children-in-englands-schools-are-made-to-feel-like-the-way-they-speak-is-wrong\/","title":{"rendered":"How Black children in England\u2019s schools are made to feel like the way they speak is\u00a0wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ian Cushing<\/a>, Edge Hill University<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Whiteness<\/a> is an invention of the modern, colonial age. It refers to the racialisation of white people<\/a> and the disproportionate privilege \u2013 social, linguistic, economic, political \u2013 that comes with this. Crucially, as an invention, whiteness is not innate \u2013 it is taught<\/a>. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As an educational project, whiteness is designed to maintain<\/a> racial hierarchies. Whether or not that intention remains or is recognised in modern schools, the racism underpinning that educational project continues<\/a> to shape education in England. <\/p>\n

Black children are more likely to face disproportionate disciplinary<\/a> procedures and be excluded<\/a>. They face discriminatory hair policies<\/a>, and, when their speech is deemed to differ<\/a> from \u201cstandard\u201d or \u201cacademic\u201d English, they face anti-black linguistic racism<\/a>. <\/p>\n

And in recent years, whiteness and anti-black linguistic racism have become further normalised under the so-called \u201cwhat works\u201d<\/a> agenda of education policy. <\/p>\n

The UK government launched the What Works network<\/a> in 2013, in order to design policies, and how they are delivered, on the basis of what they called \u201cthe best\u201d research evidence available.<\/p>\n

In education, this claim that policymaking is scientifically objective and evidence-led is used to bolster the idea that the resulting policies will effectively do what they say, namely tackle inequality. However, my work shows how what-works-based education policy is not objective or neutral. It normalises white, middle-class language and can result in the use of non-standard, non-academic language being disciplined<\/a> in schools. <\/p>\n

The \u2018what works\u2019 agenda<\/h2>\n

Between 2021 and 2022<\/a>, I conducted research in two different secondary schools in London. I observed classrooms, did interviews and analysed policies and lesson materials. <\/p>\n

Both schools had majority white staff, serving mostly black children from low-income families. Both schools had subscribed to a \u201cwhat works\u201d approach to language teaching.<\/p>\n

The first school had introduced \u201cevidence-led\u201d curriculum materials, entitled English Mastery<\/a>. Teachers I collaborated with reported how these materials encouraged them to correct how their pupils spoke, avoiding language deemed to deviate from standard norms.<\/p>\n

As a result, black children simply kept quiet or produced minimal answers, which they were further criticised for. Being made to internalise the ideology that their language was deficient resulted in their identity being eroded, an impact which research bears out<\/a>. <\/p>\n

This ideology was further articulated by the staff I interviewed. One teacher said \u201cwhat works\u201d curriculums would \u201caddress persistent errors\u201d and curtail the use of \u201ccolloquial\u201d speech, thereby allowing marginalised children to \u201cfunction properly in the world\u201d. Another teacher described how management had insisted on a \u201cstandard English only\u201d policy because they deemed classrooms to be full of what they termed \u201cpoor quality talk\u201d<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Research has long shown<\/a> that standard and academic English are not neutral categories but social and colonial constructions based on the language of the white middle classes. Yet in these schools, acquiring standard and academic English is seen as the path to social justice. Similar thinking has been shown to underpin decision-making<\/a> at Ofsted, the UK schools inspectorate and national policy too<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Despite the claimed intentions around racial equity and justice with which they are marketed, \u201cwhat works\u201d materials risk reproducing anti-black prejudice. They define any student as \u201cfunctioning\u201d or \u201cworking\u201d as one who models their language on whiteness. And they still result in working-class, black children facing language discrimination, because, as research shows, beliefs about so-called \u201cproper language\u201d<\/a> always relate to beliefs about race and class. <\/p>\n

\n \"School
\n Teachers need to affirm all children\u2019s creative approach to language and learning.<\/span>
\n Monkey Business Images\/Shutterstock<\/a><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The \u2018word gap\u2019<\/h2>\n

In another school I studied, management had designed policies to tackle the so-called \u201cword gap<\/a>\u201d. Since the 2010s<\/a>, there has been a resurgence among education specialists in England \u2013 policy makers at Ofsted<\/a>, authors of teacher textbooks<\/a> and the education publishing industry<\/a> at large \u2013 of this idea, which is rooted in 1960s theories of verbal deprivation<\/a> and was recycled in 1990s educational psychology<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As education secretary in 2012, Michael Gove told the UK parliament<\/a> that the lack of attainment in children from disadvantaged backgrounds was due to \u201cgrowing up in households where they are not read to and where they do not have a rich literary heritage on which to draw\u201d. Amanda Spielman, chief inspector at Ofsted reiterated<\/a> this position in 2018: \u201cThese children arrive at school without the words they need to communicate properly.\u201d <\/p>\n

This reductive argument poses that the solution to systemic inequalities but in giving marginalised children more, \u201cbetter\u201d words than what their families and communities provide them with. In other words, it blames not the socioeconomic system for failing these communities but the communities themselves for not having the right language and literacy practices.<\/p>\n

\n