17994910 Parsa Qureshi

Critically analyse how intersections of race, ethnicity and class might impact upon a students’

educational aspirations and life chances. Reflect on how your own intercultural

understandings might influence your teaching practice.

Despite the advancements of the twenty-first century that we live in, many aspects of our

societies are still disadvantaged. An example of this can be seen in educational contexts,

where the backgrounds of students can have direct affect upon their learning. Diversity is a

global theme, adopted in educational contexts through the ensuring of fair treatment and

equal opportunity for all students regardless of their differences. It is crucial for teachers to

carry a deep understanding of intercultural differences and the ways they can affect a child’s

education. In this essay I will explore how intersectional disadvantages of race, ethnicity and

class can impact on education, especially upon the life chances and aspirations of students. I

will also argue how such disadvantages are a result of neo-liberal views on education as well

as exploring the role of critical race theory. I will further explain how policies can impact

upon such matters and the ways input by teachers can address these inequalities.

Access to an education is a right that all members of a society should be entitled to, yet it is

just as important to ensure that each participant is gaining equal access to required resources.

This introduces the notion of equity in education, which may sometimes differ from equality.

Equity is composed of fairness but a fairness which caters to individual needs as opposed to

providing everyone with the same option (Menefee & Bray, 2015), when one party is clearly

more disadvantaged than the other. This means that elements such as socioeconomic status,

gender and ethnicity should not be barriers for a student’s achievement (Sellar & Lingard,

2014), yet they still are. Families who belong to the lower classes may not afford to send their

children to a privileged school and thus the access to education they would receive would not

1
17994910 Parsa Qureshi

be of a high quality. This is just an example of how SES can affect access to education

however, socialist notions emerging in the post war period perceive this inequality from a

different view. The idea of ‘equality of opportunity’ which was produced to create a more

just society and other educational ideas at the time were based on a meritocratic ideology

(Marks & McMillan, 2003). They defined success as based on the effort and ability of

individual students, with no social or economic implications (Marks et al, 2003). Even though

the efforts of an individual does have a significant effect on their achievements, factors like

SES can contribute to their success rates.

Socioeconomic disadvantage becomes a social justice issue when it prevents individuals from

accessing their rights, i.e. education, and prevents them from reaching their aspirations.

Children belonging to a lower SES generally score lower on tests of intelligence and

academic achievement in schools (Jensen, 2013). The Gonski Review also highlights socio-

economic status as one of the key areas of disadvantage (Riddle, 2014). Children who come

from a low SES have a reduced access to education due to factors such as their financial

situation and the stability of their home lives (Riddle, 2014). Studies also show that students

of a low SES have reduced abilities in cognition, have a short attention span and find it

difficult to monitor the quality of their work (Jensen, 2013). From a neoliberalist perspective,

it is the personal effort a student puts in which determines their levels of success; if they are

hardworking enough, they can achieve anything (Riddle, 2014). However, this disadvantages

individuals who are affected by circumstances out of their control and places pressure on

them to be responsible for themselves without the provision of the necessary support they

require.

2
17994910 Parsa Qureshi

Government initiatives such as the My School website may make it difficult for students and

families of disadvantaged backgrounds. This is because the website not only provides school

scores of NAPLAN but also points out socio-economic differences (Wardman, 2016). Here,

inequity is constructed as a problem in this government policy because the socioeconomic

status of schools is being defined as the reason for their differences. Such an approach

ascribes the ranking of each school on the teacher practices and their SES’ only (Sellar et al

2014). It shifts the responsibility of academic achievement away from the government and

places it onto the efforts of teachers, parents and students (Wardman, 2016). The ideas of

Foucault emphasise this point by defining the purpose of institutions as ‘to manage others and

teach them to manage themselves’ (Wardman, 2016, p. 313). This neoliberalist perception

identifies students as consumers in the educational marketplace meaning that students who

are economically disadvantaged will fall behind (Wardman, 2016).

The Australian government has a history of disadvantaging individuals and groups according

to their ethnicity, which is an element of intersectional disadvantage. This is evident through

the treatment of Indigenous Australians, the effects of which are still impacting upon their

communities today (Banks, 2009). The Australian policy of Assimilation in the 1930’s

stripped Aboriginal people of their indigeneity, their culture and forced them to adopt a white

identity (Shay, 2015), along with denying them the rights to a proper education. This caused

serious long term affects in their society, a reason for which even today many Aboriginal

students are disengaged with school environments, have poor achievement rates and also face

social and economic disadvantage (Shay, 2015). Also, the children of migrants who were

arriving in Australia in the 19th century were lacking in areas such as fluency in the English

language and it was after the 1960’s that this issue was addressed (Banks, 2009). The

introduction of policies such as the 1983 Multicultural Education Policy paved way for

3
17994910 Parsa Qureshi

diversity to be accepted in educational environments, such as introducing government funded

programs like ESL to support those not from an English speaking background (Banks, 2009).

The initial reluctance of the Australian government to incorporate policies for diversity is a

reflection of the concept of critical race theory. CRT is a set of interconnected beliefs about

race and racism and how they are institutionalized and maintained in western societies

(Gillborn, 2007). It challenges the claims of neutrality, colour blindness and meritocracy in

the policies around us (Sleeter, 2017). The concept of ‘white supremacy’ is embedded in

CRT, yet does not link it directly as being a form of racism. Instead white supremacy in CRT

is seen as ‘white privilege or white power’ (Cole, 2009). In school settings, this notion of

CRT can play out if teachers are predominantly white and not culturally aware of the

diversity of students. Dominant discourses identify the teacher as the individual with the

majority of power in the classroom, while on the other hand the western discourses of

childhood construct images of children as innocent and in need of adult direction (Ferfolja,

Diaz & Ullman, 2015). Yet, teachers cannot force students to always comply and are

therefore responsible to ensure they do not abuse their power or single out any students for

their differences. The Australian government also carried the white supremacist notion when

they introduced the White Australia Policy, which prevented even the qualified migrants

from entering Australia. Yet, over time initiatives have been introduced which overlook this

notion of white privilege.

International bodies such as UNESCO and the United Nations draw out policy documents in

regard to the importance of education in promoting diversity (Hatoss, 2004) which all

member states are required to follow. This has led to initiatives in Australia such as the

National Policy on Languages, which promotes the inclusion of intercultural communication

4
17994910 Parsa Qureshi

in Australia (Hatoss, 2004). As well as the introduction of the National Asian Languages and

Studies in Australian Schools Strategy (NALSAS), which has made it a priority to learn

about Asian culture and languages in schools, for the betterment of Australia’s future and

cultural aspirations (Hatoss, 2004). Such programs by the government are an indication of

support for the needs of diverse students, policies like these create a supportive and

intercultural environment for students which can help them progress in their studies and in

their life knowing that they are being assisted. Nevertheless, the creation of support initiatives

to cater for diversity by the government is not enough, as an important focus for preventing

inequality and disadvantage for students can truly be addressed through teacher pedagogies.

A study conducted in the U.S of teacher education programs showed that their programs were

compiled of focus on multicultural education, social justice teaching and culturally

responsive pedagogy (Sleeter, 2017). This was important as there were predominantly white

teachers in schools containing high numbers of diverse students. Despite these preparations to

enable teachers to be culturally aware, when they were questioned upon the reason for low

achievement amongst their students, their responses named student attendance, poverty,

language barriers and lack of student motivation as reasons for failure (Sleeter, 2017). The

outcomes of this study not only interpret the ways teachers connect poverty to academic

failure but also prove that this is a reality which is affecting student life chances. If a student

is suffering from an unstable home life they require supportive environments from teachers,

as financial hardships can cause depressive symptoms and a lack of motivation in students

(Jensen, 2013).

As a future teacher it is critical for me to take into consideration the differences between

students in regard to their social status, cultural background and their personal skills and

5
17994910 Parsa Qureshi

abilities. As there is significant evidence which points towards how a low socioeconomic

status and racism faced by students can impact upon their learning and also the stability of

their environment, it is necessary to ensure teaching practices do not disadvantage any

student in any way. However, because I also come from an ethnic background, I believe it

may be easier for me to understand and therefore address the diversity of students and help

cater to their needs. As I have already been exposed to the school environment, I have

experienced various teacher pedagogies and can single out practices that worked for students

like me (Ferfolja et al, 2015) and how to allow those students to progress in strong and

supportive environments. Teaching practices need to be unbiased and considerate of the

development of each student. For example, if I teach students who have financial problems at

home I will ensure they understand that the school environment will support them, introduce

them towards counselling and keep checks on them to make sure they are not stressed out.

Similarly if there are students struggling with the English language, the option of classes such

as ESL or a one on one session with the teacher to explain the content and what is required

for them in a way they understand, will be suitable for them. Moreover, a primary concern for

me will be to prevent any discriminatory or racist behaviours amongst peers, ensuring that all

students are made aware of values such as respect, acceptance and multiculturalism. An

important focus for myself as a teacher will be to present content, opinions and issues in an

unbiased manner. This will be not just to ensure that children of various cultural backgrounds

are treated fairly but also to ensure my own experience of growing up ‘different’ will not

cloud my judgement for the treatment of students who are Anglo or who are socio-

economically different.

To conclude, teaching practices are crucial to the classroom environment as it is through the

various pedagogies that teacher’s adopt which can determine the success of each student.

6
17994910 Parsa Qureshi

This is because factors such as socioeconomic background and the racial status of a person

are an example of intersectional disadvantage which does affect the future of students.

Individuals struggling with financial situations, belonging to a lower class or dealing with

discriminatory behaviours by others are found to have reduced levels of success in life

opportunities and access. Neoliberal ideologies which portray students as consumers and thus

responsible for their own success through personal efforts, severely disadvantage those who

are affected by intersectional problems out of their control. For this reason it is important for

governments and schools alike to prevent concepts such as white privilege or ‘the other’ to

grow in educational environments. Teacher pedagogy and input can significantly change the

way these students are treated through the creation of supportive, secure and positive learning

environments so no child, despite what their background problems are, is disadvantaged in an

way.

7
17994910 Parsa Qureshi

References

Banks, A. J. (2009). The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education.

Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sK2TAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=P

A109&dq=multicultural+inequality+in+australian+schools&ots=kvKwgEt6mY&sig=

9GaSPxraSJvv4stcfbrkXpSkpgY#v=onepage&q=multicultural%20inequality%20in%

20australian%20schools&f=false

Cole, M. (2009). White Supremacy and Racism; Social Class and Racialization. In Critical

Race Theory and Education: A Marxist Response. (pp. 23-45). New York: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Ferfolja, T., Diaz, J. C., & Ullman, J. (2015). The Unseen Half: Theories for Educational

Practices (pp. 1-17). Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Gillborn, D. (2007). Critical Race Theory and Education: Racism and anti-racism in

educational theory and praxis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of

Education, 27 (1), 11-32.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1080/01596300500510229

Hatoss, A. (2004). Promoting Diversity through Language in Education Policies: Focus on

Australia and the European Union. Current Issues in Language Planning, 5(4), 438-

454. Doi: 10.1080/14664200408668268.

8
17994910 Parsa Qureshi

Jensen, E. (2013). How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement. Educational Leadership, 70

(8), 24-30. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b015

3bf7-ccab-48f2-bad2-67b69be3836c%40sessionmgr4006&vid=1&hid=4214

Marks, N. G., & McMillan, J. (2003). Declining Inequality? The changing impact of socio-

economic background and ability on education in Australia. British Journal of

Sociology, 54 (4), 453 – 471. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1468-

4446.2003.00453.x/epdf

Menefee, T., Bray, M. (2015). Quality and Equity in Education. Commonwealth Education

Partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.cedol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CEP-

Quality-Equity.pdf

Riddle, S. (2014, March 4). Why poor kids continue to do poorly in the education game. The

Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/why-poor-kids-continue-to-

do-poorly-in-the-education-game-23500

Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2014). Equity in Australian Schooling: The Absent Presence of

Socioeconomic Context. In S. Gannon & W. Sawyer (Ed.), Contemporary Issues of

Equity in Education (pp. 1-21). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

9
17994910 Parsa Qureshi

Shay, M. (2015). The perceptions that shape us: Strengthening Indigenous young people’s

cultural identity in flexi school settings (pp. 93-105). Australia: Cambridge University

Press.

Sleeter, E. C. (2017). Critical Race Theory and the Whiteness of Teacher Education. Urban

Education, 52 (2), 155-169. Doi: 10.1177/0042085916668957

Wardman, P. N. (2016). ‘Productive’ and ‘disciplined’, students for the common good:

Globalised discourses of neoliberal and neoconservative responsibility in Australian

education policy. Global Studies of Childhood, 6 (3), 311-323. Doi:

10.1177/2043610616664810. Retrieved from

http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/2043610616664810

10