Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE

Inclusion of Ethnic Minorities in Philosophy A-Level at an FE College

Author: Sally Latham

Journal Title: Discourse

ISSN: 2040-3674

ISSN-L: 1741-4164

Volume: 9

Number: 1

Start page: 155

End page: 164

Return to vol. 9 no. 1 index page

Objectives

The Foster Report (2005) published for the DfES stated that Further Education colleges of the future should deliver its core purpose in an inclusive way which improves diversity and equality of opportunity. This report will focus whether the delivery of the AQA A-level Philosophy syllabus at Sutton Coldfield College, a very large, multicultural college, offers equality of opportunity and inclusion in a specific area of student diversity—ethnicity.

The report will take the following structure:

  1. A broad overview of government policy regarding inclusive provision, through, for example, LSC and DfES documentation, and linking this to the statistics for the ethnic background of students in the college Sixth Form, and for Philosophy A-level. The specific anomaly regarding the number of Black males taking the subject will be highlighted.
  2. A closer look at the AQA Philosophy curriculum and policy on inclusion and diversity, in an attempt to explain and assess some of the findings in the previous section. The issue of lack of Black role models and philosophical tradition will be considered, along with the much wider issue of perceived lack of relevance of the subject, which may be magnified in this demographic.

Government Policy on Inclusion and Diversity

The LSC Equality and Diversity Strategy (2004/7) includes two points that are particularly pertinent:

It seems then, applying this to the case in hand, that the college should be delivering the Philosophy curriculum in such a way that each learner, regardless of ethnic background, is included, and that the curriculum is tailored to individual needs, which indicates that the curriculum should be regarded as a praxis, where learner needs should be addressed in ensuring that they can relate to syllabus content and see the relevance of the subject (Smith 1996, 2000). But then the Strategy goes on to say that the success of such an approach will only be measured in terms of results, taking a much more product based approach to curriculum. It seems that the LSC will be assessing results, and the personalised learning process will be down to the different institutions to deliver. Presumably, should the statistics not indicate that ethnic minorities are achieving measurable results, then the personalised and inclusive learning will not be judged to be taking place.

This can be considered alongside the DfES Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners (2004) which states that the proposed transformed 14-19 phase should offer a:

...wide choice of high quality programmes for every young person, with challenge at all levels, and support to overcome barriers to progress.

Although not stated explicitly in the document, I am taking barriers to progress for ethnic minority groups to include issues such as the language spoken at home, different religious and cultural backgrounds and beliefs, and perhaps also parental expectations of education and subjects to be studied (this obviously, is an issue for research in itself). In this document, it is not stated how this will be measured.

The next consideration would be the statistics for ethnic diversity in the college during 2004/5 when this research began, and compare this to the intake of Philosophy students.

If we follow LSC guidelines, and focus on measurable results, then it seems the college provision of the Philosophy curriculum has successfully implemented LSC and DfES guidelines on inclusion and equality of opportunity. But there is a glaring anomaly. Despite Black males comprising 7.7% of the college starting students, not one Black male joined the AS Philosophy class that year. This trend continued, with no Black males enrolling in 2005 or 2006, and one Black male enrolling in both 2007 and 2008. This makes the issue of curriculum delivery, retention and achievement for this particular minority group redundant, as they are not even taking the course in the first place.

Research produced for the DfES by the University of Birmingham (2003) showed that young Black men in post-16 education often view college as a chance to re-enter education and main stream opportunities for young people who have been alienated by previous experiences of schooling.

In particular, college can provide a space where young Black men are supported by a community of Black students, and an opportunity to study a curriculum that celebrates Black cultures and histories.

Why, then, in a college with such ethnic diversity of learners, has A-level Philosophy failed to engage Black male learners? If FE colleges are the opportunity to engage previously disengaged learners, why is Philosophy failing to extend inclusivity to Black males? To some extent, we can look to the specification content, although scope for change here might be limited. On the other hand, the problem may be to do with perception of the subject in general.

Possible Reasons for the Under-representation of Black Males

The first issue considered was the specification content itself. The AQA Philosophy A-Level curriculum has clear aims and objectives— that learners have clear knowledge and understanding of themes and texts, and can take a 'rigorous approach, both critical and constructive, to the study of philosophy'. The aims stated in the syllabus list a range of transferable skills such as comprehension, interpretation, evaluation and analysis, and it is recognised that there will be an increase in maturity from AS to A2.

The specifications also state that it provides 'a worthwhile course for candidates of various ages and from diverse backgrounds'. The specifications also include a section on 'Spiritual, Moral, Ethical, Social, Cultural and Other Issues' in which it is stated that candidates should be aware that 'society is made up of individuals with a variety of opinions'. They are also careful to state that AQA 'has taken great care in the preparation of this specification ... to avoid bias of any kind'. (2006)

With such seemingly good intentions and claims to inclusivity, what, then, is the barrier to inclusion?

Without going into great detail into the old specification, there were options over the two years between certain themes, set texts, and a synoptic study based on the philosophers covered in the set texts. All of these philosophers are male, and all are European. This obvious bias contradicts the inclusivity claims made by AQA, but is seemingly acknowledged and accepted, as the syllabus states that it covers 'philosophy of a Western tradition, not Eastern cultures, which is covered in the Religious Studies syllabus.' Thus although it would seem on the face of it that the individual centres can tailor the curriculum from a number of syllabus options—texts and themes—there is obviously limited flexibility when there is no Eastern or Afro-Caribbean philosophy to choose from (although from experience it is possible to make some references in certain areas of the specification). Having said this, the number of ethnic minority learners from Asian backgrounds studying philosophy at the college is proportionally high. Perhaps this is due to a stronger philosophical tradition in Asian and Western European cultures than in Afro-Caribbean. But this would not explain the gender differences, as Black females are fairly well represented.

This lack of non-Western themes and texts makes the retention and achievement of ethnic minorities (not to mention females) surprising, even more so when the advanced level of English required to study these texts is taken into account. However once again the issue at hand here is not the success of the college in attracting and retaining ethnic minorities and females, but why Black males are not taking the subject, let alone being retained or achieving on the course. As stated above, these points do not explain why Black males are less represented in the subject than females, so other issues need to be considered. The LSC guidelines suggest that how inclusivity is achieved will be measured on results. But if Black males are not even taking the subject in the first place, retention and achievement are not even an issue.

It should be noted, though, that there is little opportunity for change in specification in this regard, as the scope for any Afro- Caribbean philosophy that would be applicable is very limited, and the prominence of Black philosophers both historically and in contemporary academia is very low. Although not a particularly thorough piece of research, one can simply type 'Black philosophers' into Google, and the first hit (at time of writing) is a site asking 'why are there no Black philosophers?'

This leads to the second consideration, regarding the lack of role models both historically and in teaching for Black males.

Research by the Commission for Black Staff in Further Education (2003) advises that 'Black learners should be taught and motivated by both Black and white staff...[to] experience positive Black role models.' This seems impossible when there are not even any positive role models for male Black students in the syllabus. The obvious implication of the lack of Black male students in Philosophy is the lack of Black male teachers. This again, does not necessarily explain gender differences, unless one assumes that positive role models are even more important to young Black males than Black females.

But the lack of role models in academia will not be solved until Black male students actually begin to take philosophy in the first place. It seems that we need to consider other issues, perhaps the generic character of philosophy itself. Traditionally a rather elitist subject, it may be hard to engage learners into the relevance of such an abstract topic, and despite earnest talk of 'transferable skills', the use of philosophy for future employment is not obvious.

It is necessary to consider the current situation at HE, and the employment market. Research presented in 2008 and quoted by government minister David Lammy (the first Black Briton to study for a Masters in Law at Harvard) shows that the proportion of university students who are Black Caribbean males has remained at just above one percent for the past three years. Obviously, here is a group who is vastly under-represented in HE. Those who do go to university rarely study Philosophy.

Mark Steel, in his 2006 article for the Independent, suggested that philosophers need to promote philosophy as something integral to life, rather than a stand-alone subject. He mentions New Labour's 'dislike' for philosophy, as it is not 'useful'. ('Playing Philosophical With The Truth', 22nd February 2006). Although New Labour's perception that 'use' equates to how easy it is to make money is probably overly cynical, it may be the case that study for study's sake, sadly, is seen as a luxury, and that Philosophy is perceived as a little self-indulgent in today's climate.

One main reason for this is the high level of graduate unemployment in today's competitive market, and a possible preference for more career-oriented subjects. When a student does not have a cultural or family tradition of HE, they may choose to study a subject that will guarantee employment, as sadly study for study's sake is a luxury few can afford. With the news full of unemployment and job cuts, studying Philosophy may simply not be a practical or viable option for many. This issue is obviously one that applies across all ethnicities and genders, but the point is that it will be magnified in a demographic without a strong culture of HE.

The Future

Lesley Dee, in the report Inclusive Learning—From Rhetoric to Reality, suggests that as it stands, the FE curriculum is not based on inclusive principles which seek to match the provision to the requirements of the learners, but on determining the curriculum, and then selecting students to fit the courses. (Dee, 1999 in Green & Lucas 1999).

This claim seems to be supported if one considers the non-selection, however inadvertent, of black male students at the college, and I would imagine, if there had been opportunity to research it, nationwide. But this is not something that can be easily changed without a more prominent history of Black philosophy to draw upon, whereas subjects such as History have been more easily able to adapt to cross-cultural needs, and incorporate Black history modules.

The change in specification may allow some room for flexibility in making more cross-cultural references (for example linguistic determinism and conceptual schemes on the compulsory Reason and Experience module). But this is unlikely to have any major impact, and perhaps the more pertinent issue, and one which deliverers of Philosophy and A-Level and HE can have some control over, is the perceived relevance of the subject. Philosophy needs to be presented as a skill that can lead to success in a range of areas such as Law and Media, rather than an isolated and abstract body of knowledge. Success stories of Philosophy graduates need to be publicised, and the subject needs to be marketed as relevant to students without a family background in HE. How this can be successfully achieved is still to be developed. But what is clear, is that simply looking at the specification content is only a very small part of the picture when it comes to inclusivity in Philosophy.

References

Bhattacharyya, .G, Isa, I.and Blair, M., University of Birmingham for DfES Minority Ethnic Attainment and Participation in Education and Training: The Evidence (2003) http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ethnicminorities/links_ and_publications/77003/

Commission for Black Staff in Further Education, Challenging Racism—Further Education Leading the Way (2003) http://www.lifelonglearninguk.org/documents/reports/race_equality_fullreport.pdf.

Foster, Sir Andrew, Realising the Potential—A Review of Further Education Colleges (2005) http://www.dfes.gov.uk/furthereducation/fereview/downloads/REALISON06.pdf

Green, A., & Lucas, U., Further Education and Lifelong Learning: Realigning the Sector for the Twenty-first Century Institute of Education, (Bedford Way Press, 1999). Including Dee, L 'Inclusive Learning: From Rhetoric to Reality'.

DfES Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners (2004) http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/5yearstrategy/

Skills and Education Network—Learning Skills Council, Your Guide 2 Engaging Hard to Reach: Minority Ethnic Groups (2005): http://senet.lsc.gov.uk/guide2/hardminority

Skills and Education Network—Learning Skills Council, Your Guide 2 Equality and Diversity—Policy and Strategy (2005): http://senet.lsc.gov.uk/guide2/equality

Smith, M.K., 'Curriculum Theory and Practice', in The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, (1996, 2000): http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm

AQA GCE Philosophy Specification (2006): http://www.aqa.org

Return to vol. 9 no. 1 index page

This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.

 

-
The British Association for the Study of Religions
The Religious Studies Project