Swann (1985)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Membership, Contents, Introduction

Part I: Setting the scene
Chapter 1 The nature of society
Chapter 2 Racism: theory and practice
Chapter 3 Achievement and underachievement
Chapter 3 continued

Part II: Education for all
Chapter 4 Ethnic minorities and education: historical perspective
Chapter 5 Multicultural education: further studies
Chapter 5 continued
Chapter 6 'Education for all': a new approach

Part III: Major areas of concern
Chapter 7 Language and language education
Chapter 8 Religion and the role of the school
Chapter 9 Teacher education; employment of ethnic minority teachers
Chapter 9 continued

Part IV: 'Other' ethnic minority groups
Introduction
Chapter 10 Chinese children
Chapter 11 Cypriot children
Chapter 12 Italian children
Chapter 13 Ukranian children
Chapter 14 Vietnamese children
Chapter 15 'Liverpool Blacks'
Chapter 16 Travellers' children
Reflections and conclusions

Part V:
Main conclusions and recommendations

Appendices

Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups

Chairman: Lord Swann

Cmnd. 9453

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1985
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Chapter 4 Ethnic minorities and education: a historical perspective
[pages 191 - 228]

1. Introduction

1.1 In this chapter we attempt to offer an overview of the way in which the range of specialist measures, approaches to teaching and educational principles which have come to be known collectively as 'multicultural' education have evolved over the last twenty years or so and then to reflect on the state of multicultural education today. In so doing we seek to identify the various strands of the debate and the concerns of the ethnic minority communities, as well as examining central government policies and pronouncements and the response of LEAs and individual schools. We have sought to stand back from the tide of often-heated argument, debate and invective which today surrounds the whole area of the educational needs of ethnic minority children, and the issue of how schools in 'all-white' areas should be preparing their pupils for life in a multiracial society, and examine critically some of the basic assumptions which have influenced and to some extent still underlie policy making from central government and local government level to the individual school and the individual teacher in the classroom.

2. Early educational responses to immigration

2.1 Although children from a range of different ethnic backgrounds have long been present in this country, it is only since the early 1950s, with the sharp rise in immigration from Commonwealth countries, that the changing nature of British society and the fact that this might have particular implications for education has been seen as an issue. It is generally accepted that attitudes towards the educational needs of ethnic minority pupils fall into a clearly defined chronological pattern, moving from the early days of what is usually termed 'assimilation', through attempts to give at least some recognition in schools to the backgrounds of ethnic minority children - usually known as 'integration' - to the more recent moves towards multicultural education. We deal with each of these phases in turn.

Assimilation

Language needs and 'culture shock'

2.2 The initial response of the education system to the arrival of increasing numbers of immigrant children in schools during the late 1950s and early 1960s was to focus on absorbing them into the majority pupil population as rapidly as possible. The major obstacles to achieving this were seen as first and foremost the children's lack of expertise in the English language, coupled with the disorientation which they were felt to experience on arrival in a new country: commonly known as 'culture shock'. It is interesting to recall that in view of this focus on language as the major 'problem', children from the West Indies were considered to have no particular educational needs. For other immigrant children, from non-English speaking families, as the DES Circular 7/65 (1) put it:

'From the beginning the major educational task is the teaching of English.'

Dispersal

2.3 Another major concern of the assimilationist phase of the educational response to immigrant children, which appears to have arisen as much for political as educational reasons, was the officially sanctioned and indeed encouraged attempts at 'dispersing' these children between different schools in an attempt to 'spread the problem' and avoid any school becoming predominantly immigrant in character (mirroring of course the thinking behind moves in the United States towards bussing 'black' children in certain areas). The 1964 report of the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council (CIAC) (2) expressed the concerns of many in education at the time about the possible effects of a school having large numbers of immigrant pupils, as follows:

'The presence of a high proportion of immigrant children in one class slows down the general routine of working and hampers the progress of the whole class, especially where the immigrants do not speak or write English fluently. This is clearly in itself undesirable and unfair to all the children in the class ... The evidence we have received strongly suggests that if a school has more than a certain percentage of immigrant children among its pupils the whole character and ethos of the school is altered. Immigrant pupils in such a school will not get as good an introduction to British life as they would get in a normal school, and we think their education in the widest sense must suffer as a result ... we were concerned by the evidence we received that there were schools in certain parts of the country containing an extremely high proportion of immigrant children. Moreover, the evidence from one or two areas showed something a good deal more disturbing than a rise in the proportion of immigrant children in certain schools; it showed a tendency towards the creation of predominantly immigrant schools, partly because of the increase in the number of immigrant children in certain neighbourhoods, but also partly because some parents tend to take native-born children away from schools when the proportion of immigrant pupils exceeds a level which suggests to them that the school is becoming an immigrant school. If this trend continues. both the social and the educational consequences might be very grave.'

'If possible, it is desirable on education grounds that no one school should have more than about 30 per cent of immigrants ... I must regretfully tell the House that one school must be regarded now as irretrievably an immigrant school. The important thing to do is to prevent this happening elsewhere.'

'It is inevitable that, as the proportion of immigrant children in a school or class increases, the problems will become more difficult to solve, and the chances of assimilation more remote. How far any given proportion of immigrant children can be absorbed with benefit to both sides depends on, among other of immigrant children who are proficient in English; the dividing line cannot be precisely defined. Experience suggests, however, that ... up to a fifth of immigrant children in any group fit in with reasonable ease, but that, if the proportion goes over about one third either in the school as a whole or in anyone class, serious strains arise. It is therefore desirable that the catchment areas of schools should, wherever possible, be arranged to avoid undue concentrations of immigrant children. Where this proves impracticable simply because the school serves an area which is occupied largely by immigrants, every effort should be made to disperse the immigrant children round a greater number of schools and to meet such problems of transport as may arise.'

'It will be helpful if the parents of non-immigrant children can see that practical measures have been taken to deal with the problems in the schools, and that the progress of their own children is not being restricted by the undue preoccupation of the teaching staff with the linguistic and other difficulties of immigrant children.'

'The whole question of the educational effect of dispersal schemes was given only cursory attention when the policy was first proposed. For some, the point of the policy was to make life easier for teachers in schools which would normally have large intakes of children of immigrants. For others, the policy was a way of preventing the development of 'all immigrant' schools, which were per se undesirable. For still others, dispersal was an essential basis for cultural assimilation, including the learning of English ... Little or no thought had been devoted to a clear analysis of the nature and the extent of the educational needs of the immigrants. It was wrongly assumed that an influx of immigrant pupils into a school automatically hampered the chances of native English children in the school and that the children were competitors for the teacher's attention under all circumstances ... Official policy gave the accurate impression of having been devised under the pressure of circumstances and based on received ideas. Central to both was the concept that, as a result of the coming of immigrant pupils, the schools were changing for the worse ... The official dispersal policy, with its emphasis on preserving the normal routine of a school, was in a sense a Canute-like attempt to prevent change.'

2.6 In order to provide the statistical basis for the dispersal policy and also to quantify the degree of language need, the DES initiated, in 1966, the collection of statistics on 'immigrant' children, through Form 7(i) returns, which sought information on children who were themselves immigrants or had been born in this country to immigrant parents who had arrived in the previous ten years. By implication these statistics suggested that after ten years in Britain an immigrant family would cease to suffer from any educational difficulties that could be attributed to immigration and racial difference. Financial support for the government's overall strategy at this time was made under Section 11 of the Local government Act 1966 whereby the Home Office provided a 50 per cent (later to become 75 per cent) grant to local authorities who were required to make special provision in the exercise of any of their functions in consequence of the presence within their areas of substantial numbers of immigrants from the Commonwealth:

'whose language or customs differ from those of the community.'

2.7 The assimilationist phase can thus be seen as characterised by ad hoc responses to the educational needs of immigrant pupils designed on the one hand to 'compensate' for their assumed 'deficiencies' - primarily in being non-English speaking - and on the other hand to disrupt the education of indigenous children as little as possible. Above all the assimilationist approach seems to have recognised the existence of a single cultural criterion which was 'white', Christian and English-speaking, and to have failed to acknowledge any wider implications of the changing nature of British society. Despite subsequent developments in policy making in this field the two most tangible manifestations of this approach: separate language centres and the policy of the dispersal or bussing of ethnic minority pupils continued long after policy makers would claim that the days of assimilationist thinking were behind them - language centres still being in existence in some parts of the country today, and bussing having continued in one LEA until 1979. The major source of funding for educational activities in relation to the needs of ethnic minorities also remains Section 11, which as we have seen not only took a somewhat limited view of the extent of educational need but was also designed to support the overall policy of assimilation.

Integration

2.8 Even while the official focus remained on the need to assimilate ethnic minority pupils as quickly as possible into majority society, many of the teachers who were working in multiracial schools had come to feel that the education process should give some recognition to the differences in lifestyle and cultural and religious background of ethnic minority children - what became known as integration. As HMI Eric Bolton has recalled (5):

'Contrary to the assimilationist belief that, given English language fluency, the immigrant would disappear into the crowd, those arguing for integration claimed that a much more planned and detailed education and social programme needed to be undertaken if immigrants were to be able to integrate with the majority society. The emphasis was still upon integrating the minorities with the majority society and culture so that a culturally homogeneous society would be created. This meant that it was up to the minorities to change and adapt, and there was little or no pressure upon the majority society to modify or change its prevailing attitudes or practices. However, to enable integration to take place, it was argued that the majority society needed to be more aware of historical and cultural factors affecting different minorities. Knowledge and awareness would enable the majority society to make allowances for differences in lifestyle, culture and religion that might make it difficult for some immigrant groups to integrate with British society and would help to avoid the embarrassing mistakes that could arise from ignorance.'

2.9 In practice there was little real difference between the assimilationist and integrationist viewpoints in that they shared the common aim of absorbing ethnic minority communities within society with as little disruption to the life of the majority community as possible. Whilst the integrationist stance went at least some way towards acknowledging that the lifestyles of the ethnic minority communities were valid in their own right, it failed to consider the broader implications for the traditional perception of the 'British way of life' which the presence of communities with such diverse backgrounds might have in the longer term. Indeed, looking back some ten years later on its policies during the 1960s, the government itself summarised (6) its objectives in the following rather limited and negative terms:

'i. to help create a climate in schools in which colour and race were not divisive and which would give all immigrant children opportunities for personal development in their new environment;

ii. to ensure that building programmes and teacher quotas reflected the needs of areas with large numbers of immigrant pupils;

iii. to offer advice and practical help to teachers faced with the challenge of teaching immigrant children;

iv. to safeguard against any lowering of standards, due to the presence of large numbers of non-English speaking children, which might adversely affect the progress of other children;

v. to encourage and promote relevant research.'

Our view

2.10 In view of the philosophy which we put forward at the opening of this report, for the development of a pluralist society and our rejection of the notion of the assimilation of ethnic minority groups within the majority community as both undesirable and unworkable, it is hardly surprising that we regard both the assimilationist and integrationist educational responses to the needs of ethnic minority pupils as, in retrospect, misguided and ill-founded. Regrettably, however, many of the legacies of these early days still underlie much of the thinking and discussion about the educational needs of ethnic minority groups and have also, we believe, distorted the nature and development of the broader concept of multicultural education, quite apart from the residual physical manifestations of the period such as separate language centres. For example, the negative stereotypes of certain ethnic minority groups which were established and which still persist, the seemingly automatic assumption by some teachers that an ethnic minority pupil will experience, and may well cause, problems, and, above all perhaps, the underlying suspicion that the arrival of ethnic minority pupils has meant that schools have changed for the worse and that their presence poses a threat both to traditional educational standards and to the educational well-being of ethnic majority pupils.

3. The emergence of multicultural education

Widely varying interpretations

3.1 We now look at the various factors which have influenced the emergence, over the past decade or so, of what has generally been termed 'multicultural' education. This concept is far from being clearly defined and explained, and although many people have attempted to put forward their own widely-varying definitions of multicultural education none of these can be said to have gained universal acceptance in the education world, especially in the absence of any detailed guidance from government. Although many teachers, especially those in multiracial schools have increasingly come to accept that multicultural education is a valid concept, we have found in our own visits and discussions, that interpretations as to what changes in policy or teaching practices are actually required, vary enormously and it seems clear that, despite the proliferation in recent years of books, courses and conferences concerned with this issue, in the words of the second NFER review of research:

'In a very real and pressing sense the aims of education await to be rewritten ... the very lack of a definition of multicultural education has permitted not only the widest theoretical interpretations and broadest policy objectives, but also a considerable mismatch between these and educational practices.'

3.2 The most obvious difference between the early days of assimilation and integration, and the concept of multicultural education is that, whereas the former focused primarily on seeking to 'remedy' the perceived 'problems' of ethnic minority children and to 'compensate' for their perceived 'disabilities', multicultural education has usually tended to have two distinct themes - firstly, meeting the particular educational needs of ethnic minority children and secondly, the broader issue of preparing all pupils for life in a multiracial society. These two themes are of course very much interrelated and indeed in our view, interdependent, but in order to seek to disentangle the developments which have taken place in the field of multicultural education, we shall consider each of them in turn.

3.3 The educational needs of ethnic minority children

The changing nature of the debate

The 'failure' of assimilation

3.3.1 By the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a growing realisation that the policies of assimilation and integration had failed to achieve their objectives - many ethnic minority pupils clearly still had educational needs which existing policies were proving unable to meet. On the broader level ethnic minority groups as a whole had not 'disappeared', as seems to have been hoped, by being absorbed by the majority community and the essential naivety of expecting the immigrant communities to be accepted by the indigenous majority as equal citizens of this country had been exposed by the rising tide of racial prejudice and hostility. Efforts by the government to stem this tide had proved largely ineffective, especially since successive governments had also passed Immigration Acts and Rules which were clearly intended to, and had the effect of, excluding people of non-European descent from this country. The Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968 and the establishment of the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission (the forerunners of today's Commission for Racial Equality) - see paragraphs 3.3.19 and 3.3.20 below - whilst providing an indication of the government's growing concern about racial disharmony and racial prejudice, did not have the same impact on public opinion at the time as did Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in the Spring of 1968.

Communities' concerns

3.3.2 Meanwhile, there was growing concern about the apparent underachievement of West Indian pupils who, according to assimilationist beliefs, should have had little difficulty in 'settling down'. The concern of some educationists about the generally low performance of West Indian pupils was matched if not exceeded by mounting concern in the West Indian community itself about this issue and about the specific question of the allegedly disproportionately high number of West Indian children who were finding themselves in schools for the educationally sub-normal. This latter concern was given fervent expression in 1971 in the polemical pamphlet 'How the West Indian Child is Made Educationally Subnormal in the British School System' (7). Thus a new dimension had entered the debate on ethnic minority education - the ethnic minority communities themselves, now established in this country, had begun to voice their own concerns about their children's education, which in some cases differed from the concerns of the education system.

Curriculum content

3.3.3 The West Indian community's concerns covered a range of different issues amongst these a belief that the language needs of West Indian pupils were not sufficiently catered for or understood, which was seen as a major factor in their misclassification as educationally sub-normal or 'remedial'. Concern was also felt about the curriculum content of subjects such as history and geography and the need to avoid negative or offensive references to 'black people'. The following extract from evidence presented to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration (SCORRI) (8) in 1972/73 by a West Indian community organisation illustrates these concerns:

'In educational terms a lot has been said of teaching in a multiracial school, but not enough thought has been given to the way in which such a school should be organised, the books used, the type of teachers, the type of material read in the schools. Are multiracial schools to continue to be English schools which let in Black children? We believe that such a school should reflect the contribution by and participation of all ethnic groups. Through the teaching of geography, history, drama, music, literature, West Indians could be seen as contributing to the school curriculum. Books used now not only ignore the presence of such children, but some, like 'Black Sambo', are in our estimation racist and help to perpetuate the stereotyping that could only be divisive in a school community.'

3.3.4 At this time there were also calls from the West Indian community, influenced perhaps by developments in the USA, for the introduction of 'Black Studies' as a discrete subject within the curriculum, primarily as a means of reinforcing West Indian pupils' self-image - as illustrated by the following further extract from the SCORRI evidence:

'... many of the difficulties experienced by black people, particularly the youth in this country, are either caused through or exacerbated by what some of us would like to think of as a crisis of identity. This in turn is motivated by an inadequate knowledge of their past history and a lack of proper visual inspirational aid, current in the educational process of the United Kingdom ... the inclusion of Black Study Courses in the school curriculum would be of inestimable value ... The black child goes to a white school, he is taught by white teachers, he sees pictures of white persons, he uses books written by white craftsmen, he hears and sings songs about white people, he learns poems written by white people about white people. All this necessarily accustoms him to appreciation of white values only. This largely accounts for the obvious gap in mutual appreciation between black and white in Britain today. The primary purpose of Black Studies is the adjustment of this imbalance, and to help black people in this country, particularly the children who try desperately, as one writer puts it, to escape from the 'prisons of their skins.'

3.3.5 Calls for 'Black Studies' were often coupled with calls for more teachers who were themselves of West Indian origin since it was felt that they would be better able to understand the needs of West Indian pupils and to further reinforce the pupils' self-image and motivation by acting as models of 'successful' West Indians.

'Supplementary' schools

From the late 1960s onwards there was also a proliferation of West Indian 'supplementary' schools - community-based classes held in the evenings or at weekends where West Indian pupils could not only receive additional help from West Indian teachers with their mainstream school work, but could also learn about their community's background and cultural heritage in what was seen as a 'supportive' environment.

3.3.6 During the 1970s the emphasis shifted from advocating specific 'separate' provision within mainstream schools - in the form of Black Studies - to a greater desire to see aspects of West Indian language and culture included within the existing curriculum. This changing emphasis was reflected in much of the evidence submitted to the SCORRI when it devoted its 1976-7 session to considering the West Indian community (9). One of the major recommendations of the Select Committee's report was for an inquiry into the education of West Indian pupils which in turn of course led to the establishment of this Committee, with a rather wider brief but still with the needs of West Indian pupils foremost amongst our concerns.

Concerns of the Asian community

3.3.7 During the lifetime of this Committee, there has been a marked shift in emphasis from the previous focus on the West Indian situation, to greater concern about aspects of the educational experience of pupils from the various Asian groups. Since the Asian community became established in this country rather later than the West Indian community, it is hardly surprising that only in recent years have Asian parents, teachers and community representatives begun to make known their concerns about their children's education. Whilst sharing some of the concerns already voiced by the West Indian community about, for example, the balance and content of the curriculum, the need for more teachers drawn from their own community, and above all, the pervasive influence of racism both within schools and in the wider society, the Asian community has also broadened the debate considerably by raising two further issues: firstly, the responsibility of the education system for the maintenance and teaching of the children's 'mother tongue' languages; and, secondly, whether existing schools can provide an educational environment which parents will find acceptable in terms of their religious beliefs - for example in relation to religious education and pastoral matters.

'Mother tongue'

3.3.8 Interest within education circles about the first of these issues - 'mother tongue' - can be seen to date back to the discussion in the Bullock Report (10) of the language needs of 'children from families of overseas origin', which as well as stressing the need for a positive attitude to West Indian dialect, also emphasised the significance of there being large numbers of pupils in British schools with 'mother tongues' other than English, thus:

'Their bilingualism is of great importance to the children and their families, and also to society as a whole. In a linguistically conscious nation in the modern world we should see it as an asset, as something to be nurtured, and one of the agencies which should nurture it is the school. Certainly the school should adopt a positive attitude to its pupils' bilingualism and wherever possible should help maintain and deepen their knowledge of their mother tongues.'

Pastoral matters

3.3.9 Concern about what can broadly be termed pastoral matters has been felt by Asian parents and particularly Muslims since the early days of their arrival in this country when their children first entered school and were confronted with facilities for meals and dress which brought them into direct conflict with the requirements of their religious beliefs. Strength of feeling about such matters has increased as the size of the Asian pupil population has grown and as the concentration of Asian pupils in particular schools and areas has become more marked. The world-wide resurgence of Islam and the accompanying emphasis on fundamental Islamic principles since the beginning of the decade has also clearly had a direct bearing on the Muslim community in this country, causing them to be more vociferous and determined in their efforts to bring about changes in the 'rules and regulations' affecting such matters within schools and encouraging parents to recognise and respect their religious 'rights and duties' in relation to their children's education.

'Separate' schools

The logical conclusion of such moves has been seen by some sections of these communities as the establishment of their own voluntary or independent schools and we discuss the implications of this trend which has received considerable publicity in recent months - in our Chapter on Religion and the Role of the School later in this report.

3.3.10 It is important to recognise that neither West Indian nor Asian parents, as distinct from some teachers and community workers from these groups, have pressed for what could be described as 'multicultural' education involving all pupils. In expressing their concerns about specific issues, such as a school's treatment of West Indian language or its policies with regard to meals or uniform, the parents have simply sought to improve the educational provision which their children receive. Certainly our own discussions with parents have tended to focus on specific issues such as 'mother tongue' or racism in school textbooks, rather than on the educational experience as a whole. Multicultural education can thus perhaps be seen as the response of the education system - educational theorists, educational administrators and teachers - to the wide range of concerns expressed by ethnic minority communities, as well as to the 'problems' experienced by multiracial schools in catering for the needs of their pupils. In seeking to encompass such a wide and varied range of concerns and interests it is perhaps hardly surprising that firm definitions and analyses of multicultural education prove so elusive.

Criticisms of multicultural education

3.3.11 The concept of multicultural education has of course had its critics, quite apart from those people who have simply rejected it out of hand as 'progressive, left-wing, trendy nonsense'. One of the major criticisms has been of the emphasis on 'culture' - a term which is itself rarely clearly defined and is thus open to a myriad of interpretations - and which is often seen as avoiding the more central issues of race, prejudice and power. Multicultural education has also been criticised for failing to face up to or challenge what is regarded as the most fundamental influence on the situation of ethnic minorities in this country i.e. racism. Adherents of this view have argued that a consideration of the origins and influence' of racism' should be integral features of an education process which truly seeks to prepare all pupils for life in a multiracial society. As one writer has put it (11):

'Racist attitudes and low teacher expectations arising from negative and demeaning stereotypes do exist and have to be come to terms with and changed. This, in turn, will require fundamental changes of attitude, the first step along the road to which is the recognition of the social and ethnic discrimination legitimised by the educational system which we have constructed. To make such a statement is not to place in question the immense good will of the vast majority of teachers, not to label them as racists, but rather to draw attention to their role in servicing a system which has institutionalised racial and social discrimination so effectively.'

'As interpreted and practised by many, multiracial education has appeared to become an instrument of control and stability rather than one of change, of the subordination rather than the freedom of blacks in schools and or society as a whole. In the context of schools and against a wider societal background of institutionalised racism, multiracial education programmes, from the assimilationist's view on English teaching to the integrationist's stance on multicultural and black studies, have in fact integrally contributed to the increased alienation of black youth. To be told, however politely and cleverly, that your culture and history count for nothing is to invoke responses ranging from low self esteem and lack of confidence ... to political opposition and resistance. To be told that your culture and history count for something only within the pedagogic boundaries of the school curriculum and not outside the school gates in the white dominated world of work and politics is to foster the response of a 'blacks only for the black studies class'. To be goaded to integrate politically and then in practice to take up your place at the bottom of society with as much of your culture intact as is permitted is, to extend Gus John's conclusion, a madness that not even a mad and subordinated black can any longer contemplate. Simply, what multiracial education, as viewed in British schools, is teaching black pupils is that they will always remain second-class citizens; and, ironically, that in order to survive or exist as blacks it is necessary to resist racist authority within and outside school.'

'... MRE (Multiracial education) is conceptually unsound ... its theoretical and practical implications have not been worked out and ... it represents a developing feature of urban education aimed at 'watering down' the curriculum and 'cooling out' black city children while at the same time creating for teachers, both radical and liberal, the illusion that they are doing something special/or a particularly disadvantaged group. Many of the ideas of MRE draw upon the social-pathology analysis of the black personality, lifestyle and family arrangements. Although explicitly rejecting labels of inferiority it argues instead for 'difference' - meaning exactly the same thing ... The aims of multiracial education are tied in with the cultural deprivation theory which aims to compensate working-class children for being culturally deprived (of middle class culture) and black children for not being white ... it takes schools and teachers away from their central concern which is basically teaching or instructing children in the knowledge and skills essential to life in this society. It effectively reduces choice and creates dependence on experts and professionals which undermines the individual's own capacity to cope.'

'... in understanding and providing for the difficulties of minorities, care has to be taken not to overcome them by reversing well-tried policies or, in deference to real or imagined susceptibilities, by bending a system evolved to suit the majority so far as to unhinge it altogether.'

3.3.15 During the last few years the debate on multicultural education has begun to shift again, towards a greater emphasis on the role of education in challenging and countering racism, both within schools and in the wider society. This change in emphasis can be seen as one aspect of the generally increasing level of awareness of the existence of racism combined with the greater willingness to discuss its possible effects, which we noted at the beginning of our Chapter on Racism. Our own interim report and Lord Scarman's report have of course also helped to focus attention on this issue, as have the activities of 'concerned' organisations such as the National Union of Teachers, which, in its booklet 'Combating Racism in Schools' (14), made the following comments:

'Teachers in schools have a responsibility to educate their pupils for life in a multiracial, culturally diverse society. Their task is hampered by racial attitudes and prejudices present in society which affect pupils in schools and the climate in which they learn. The Union believes that a positive approach to multicultural education will be strengthened by a firm stand on the part of teachers in combating racism in schools ...'

The role of teachers

3.3.16 Another of the major focuses of multicultural education has increasingly been the role of teachers and the extent to which the teaching force as a whole is equipped both to cater for the particular needs of ethnic minority pupils and also to prepare all children for life in a multiracial society. As HMI Eric Bolton has observed however, again in his article on the development of multicultural education (see paragraph 2.8):

'The complexity of the educational and social issues involved gives teachers a very onerous and difficult task to perform - a task most of them were not prepared for in their teacher training nor in their own experiences of life.'

'Not all teachers have immigrant children in their classes but all teachers should have some knowledge of the problems and opportunities of a multiracial society ... Those responsible for planning the social studies undertaken in training colleges will, we hope, bear in mind that future British society is going to contain citizens of many races.'

Policies of central government

General policies relating to immigration and nationality

3.3.17 Having looked briefly at the way in which the focus of multicultural education has changed over the past decade or so and the various factors which have influenced the debate about its aims and objectives, we now need to consider the way in which the policies of central government relating to ethnic minorities during this period have responded to and reflected these various needs and concerns. Before considering the specifically 'educational' aspects of central government's policies in relation to the needs of ethnic minority groups, it may be worthwhile recalling briefly the development of successive governments' overall policies towards 'immigrants' on the broader level.

3.3.18 From 1947 onwards the general welfare of what were then perceived as 'colonial' peoples coming to work and settle in Britain was the responsibility of the Colonial Office Welfare Service. In 1956, the Colonial Office set up the British Caribbean Welfare Service, which subsequently moved out of the Colonial Office and assumed an independent existence. The Home Office then became responsible for colonial, or Commonwealth immigrants' affairs, since the policies being proposed, but not yet implemented, for tackling 'immigration' fell into two categories: control over entry, and laws against racial discrimination. Very little positive action of any kind was undertaken at this time by central government to inform or assist the ethnic minorities. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was concerned entirely with controlling the entry and settlement of colonial and Commonwealth citizens, and no attempt was made at the time to legislate against discrimination: the only positive step was to establish a Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council to review the situation. Positive action was thus left entirely to voluntary effort.

3.3.19 In 1964 the then government established a Department of Economic Affairs with a Minister with specific responsibility for coordinating policy on immigrants. But in 1965 a White Paper on immigration (15), despite including a section on the positive economic benefits of immigration and the lack of problems caused by it, introduced proposals for limiting Commonwealth immigration much more closely than before by a system of work vouchers and by new limitations on dependent relatives. Positive action was however taken to reshape the former Advisory Council into a National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), which saw its role as the promotion and coordination of harmonious community relations. In the same year, the first Race Relations Act became law, and established a Race Relations Board, with virtually no powers except powers to 'conciliate', if it could, on receiving a complaint of discrimination within a very limited field which did not include housing, employment, or education. The Act also made racial incitement a criminal offence, but one where only the Attorney General could initiate a prosecution.

3.3.20 In 1968, two new laws were passed: a Commonwealth Immigrants Act which removed right of entry from British Asians in East Africa and a Race Relations Act, greatly widened in scope, to include housing, employment and many services, but again with very limited powers for the Board. The Act also established a new statutory body, the Community Relations Commission, to replace the NCCL The new Commission was given a larger budget and wider powers to grant-aid voluntary bodies on its own terms and to initiate projects. It developed some of the work already begun by the NCCI but unlike the NCCI, which had been appointed to advise the Prime Minister, it advised the Home Secretary on matters relating to Commonwealth immigrants, and 'community relations' in general. In 1969, an Immigration Appeals Act was passed, establishing a structure under which immigrants could appeal against refusal of entry, refusal to vary conditions of stay and, in some circumstances, against deportation. The provisions of this Act, with a few changes, were incorporated into the 1971 Immigration Act, which established a single regime of control on entry and after entry over aliens and Commonwealth citizens and also empowered the Home Secretary to make Immigration Rules at any time. From around 1970, by which time the entry of Commonwealth immigrants for work had virtually ceased under the increasingly strict requirements which the Department of Employment had established for work vouchers, ethnic minority affairs became almost entirely the responsibility of the Home Office. The emphasis of central government policy, and the bulk of expenditure, was on immigration control rather than upon community relations work and anti-discrimination initiatives. Wide though the theoretical scope of the bodies set up to deal with the latter two was, the positive achievements they could point to were small in comparison with the impact of successive Immigration Acts and Rules on the lives of ethnic minorities and upon public perceptions of 'immigration' and 'race'. As has been observed (16):

'... the effectiveness of the Race Relations Act is and will continue to be undermined by discriminatory immigration laws. The use of such laws to prevent immigration to Britain from the coloured Commonwealth inevitably impairs the Race Relations Board's endeavours to persuade employers' trade unions, local authorities and commercial undertakings to treat people regardless of colour or race, and encourages profound insecurity among Commonwealth immigrants in Britain.'

Educational policies

3.3.22 Turning to education, the development of government thinking can, we feel, best be traced through a consideration of some of the major reports and publications which appeared at various times. DES Survey 13 'The Education of Immigrants', which was published in 1971, can be seen as following very closely the assumptions and objectives of central government pronouncements of the 1960s, with its continuing emphasis on the teaching of English, as:

'the most urgent single challenge facing the schools';

This report also, however, in seeking to emphasise the need for schools to have some knowledge of a pupil's home background, inadvertently included some of the clearest manifestations of stereotypes of different groups, most notably perhaps the following picture of a West Indian child and his home and family background which can in many respects, as we have already emphasised in our Racism Chapter, be seen to persist in the minds of many teachers even today:

'For the West Indian child the change can be more radical. He is accustomed to living together with two or three generations in the same house, dependent not so much on his mother as upon a number of adults among whom his grandmother holds a special place. The environment is one in which marriage is not always considered important in providing a secure basis for raising children, whilst family discipline may be strict and physical punishment for misbehaviour all too familiar. He leaves behind this often repressive, but affectionate and known home environment to join his mother from whom he may have been separated for several years, almost a stranger among new unknown brothers and sisters, possibly disliking and not fully accepted by the unknown father with whom his mother may be living, and perhaps, if very young, sent out to child-minders while his parents go out to work. Little wonder that the sense of insecurity these conditions create often brings in its train emotional disturbance and maladjustment and that in school such a child will often exhibit behaviour problems. He may be restless and boisterous, displaying hostility towards adults and other children, showing little ability to concentrate or to apply himself for long to the job in hand - or else retreat depressed and uncommunicative into a withdrawn world.'

'It is difficult to measure the contribution of dispersal or non-dispersal to the success or otherwise of an authority's policy for the education of immigrant children ... It remains for each local education authority to decide what its policy for the education of immigrant children should be, and it is hoped that authorities will keep their arrangements (including any dispersal arrangements) under review in the light of local developments and the changing educational needs of pupils.'

Whilst this line represented a marked lessening in the government's previous enthusiasm for dispersal, the report did not, as has been claimed, state that dispersal was wrong, and indeed, as we have already recalled, several LEAs continued to 'bus' ethnic minority children well into the 1970s. This report was also significant in that it acknowledged the existence of racism in society and the influence which this might have on teachers' attitudes:

'The (immigrant) child is very much a stranger in a strange land and may encounter hostility from members of the white community' ... 'Teachers and others in education need to recognise that they are no less prone than anyone else to feelings of prejudice or even acts of discrimination and to realise that their attitudes, their interests and their example to a very great extent shape the personalities of those in whose hands lies the fate of coming generations.'

- and also raised the question which was subsequently to dominate much of the thinking on ethnic minority education during the 1970s: whether the problems faced by immigrant children were in essence any different from those facing children from the majority community regarded as coming from 'disadvantaged' backgrounds. As the report observed:

'Some argue that where there are immigrant educational difficulties these differ in no way from those encountered in educating native-born children living in socially and culturally deprived areas. It is in such areas that very many immigrant children live - in the ugly, bare, built-up 'twilight areas' - badly housed, lacking social, cultural and recreational amenities, attending schools with frequent staff changes, in poor buildings. They share all the difficulties of environmental deprivation known to native-born children living in these same areas. They frequently appear to suffer the same emotional disturbance the same inarticulateness and difficulty with language, the same insecure approach to school and school work, the same unsatisfactory attitudes in social relationships - all of which affect their life and general progress in school.'

'To them it implied that 'immigrants' could be lumped together in a crude, undifferentiated way with the most unfortunate members of the indigenous community.'

Since the education system had not succeeded in devising an education appropriate to the needs of the disadvantaged indigenous communities, it was therefore suggested by implication that the needs of ethnic minority pupils were simply another aspect of this wider problem. A further dimension of this new stereotype of ethnic minorities as, by definition, disadvantaged was the correlation which was increasingly drawn between their situation and the 'plight' of the inner-cities which was the subject of increasing public concern during the 1970s. As the 1975 White Paper on 'Racial Discrimination' (18) put it:

'... the problems of racial disadvantage can be seen to occur typically in the context of an urban problem whose nature is only imperfectly understood. There is no modern industrial society which has not experienced a similar difficulty. None has so far succeeded in resolving it.'

SCORRI Report 1972-1973

3.3.23 The SCORRI report of 1972-1973 on Education expressed concern about a number of aspects of the education of ethnic minority children and put forward three main recommendations:

'First, that consideration be given to the establishment of a central fund to which local education authorities could apply for resources to meet the special educational needs of immigrant children and adults; second, the local education authorities should be required, as a condition of using the Department's resources and services, to report regularly and fully on the situation in their area and what they are doing about it; third, that an immigrant education advisory unit should be set up in the Department of Education and Science.'

The government's response to the SCORRI report (19) reaffirmed the trend towards seeing ethnic minority needs within the overall context of disadvantage, as follows:

'Where immigrants and their descendants live in the older urban and industrial areas, the majority of their children are likely to share with the indigenous children of those areas the educational disadvantages associated with an impoverished environment. The government believe that immigrant pupils will accordingly benefit increasingly from special help given to all those suffering from educational disadvantage. They accept the Select Committee's view that many of those born here, of all minority ethnic groups, will experience continuing difficulties, which must receive special attention from the education service. But others, including many children and adults of indigenous origin, also have particular problems to which the education service must respond; and in large, if not in complete, measure much the same effort and attention will be called for. The pattern of special help must thus provide for all those suffering educational disadvantage, taking account of the distinct needs of different ethnic groups and of individuals, whatever their origin ... The government believe that it is necessary to make more formal arrangements for the development of the work which is now being done on the education of immigrants and education for a multiracial society. But they also see a need to provide for all those suffering from educational disadvantage, and ... they have decided that the arrangements which they create, while allowing for any distinct educational needs of different ethnic groups, should have this broader concern.'

The government accordingly set up a specialist Educational Disadvantage Unit (EDU) within the DES to oversee '... matters, at all stages of education, connected with educational disadvantage and the education of immigrants' and charged it with setting up an 'information centre' relating to its field of interest - subsequently established as the Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage (CED). The Select Committee's recommendation for a 'central fund' was rejected on the grounds that Section 11 (which as we have already seen was firmly rooted in the assimilationist tradition) and the Urban Aid programme (again identifying ethnic minorities simply as 'inner-city dwellers') already catered for the needs of 'immigrants' and that the concept of a central fund might undermine local authorities' autonomy. It is perhaps hardly surprising that these further indications of the government's view of ethnic minority needs under the overall heading of 'disadvantage' were opposed by many ethnic minority representatives at the time.

Ethnically based statistics

The Select Committee report had discussed the appropriateness and validity of the 7(i) statistics of 'immigrant' children which the DES had continued to collect (see paragraph 2.6 above). They had concluded that the definitions used were unsatisfactory and that the data obtained did not accordingly reflect the multiracial mix of school populations and had recommended therefore that:

'The collection of statistics under the present formula should cease forthwith.'

SCORRI Report 1976/1977

3.3.24 SCORRI devoted its 1976/77 session to considering the West Indian community. (20) In its evidence to them, the DES reiterated the view that the needs of the West Indian community had much in common with those of the disadvantaged sections of the indigenous community:

'... the West Indian community suffers disproportionately from some disadvantages which can be seen to depress the educational performance of indigenous children too - such as high proportions of families with the main breadwinner in unskilled work or in poor housing ... the phenomenon of low average attainment will not disappear with the ending of immigration from the Caribbean ... For (immigrants) from the West Indies ... it is generally argued that in many respects they need not so much discrete provision as better opportunities to benefit from educational services, which should also be open to indigenous people with similar needs ....'

'... the relative underachievement of West Indian children seriously affects their future employment prospects and is a matter of major importance both in educational terms and in the context of race relations. They (i.e. the Select Committee) regard the assumption of its continuance as unacceptable.'

Accordingly they recommended the establishment of 'a high level and independent inquiry into the causes of the underachievement of children of West Indian origin'. In response to this recommendation the government of course established this Committee with a broader remit than originally proposed, in response to the concerns expressed about the educational needs of children from the whole range of ethnic minority groups, as well as about the preparation of all pupils for life in a multiracial and culturally diverse society.

Closure of CED

3.3.25 We now turn to considering government policies during our own lifetime and although in some respects the very existence of this Committee had led to something of a hiatus in policy making in this field there have been several developments which it may be helpful to recall here. In November 1979 the Secretary of State announced his intention to close the Centre for Educational Disadvantage (CED), (see paragraph 3.3.23 above), on the grounds that it had:

'not wholly fulfilled the expectations raised at its foundation and continued grant aid would not provide value for money in meeting the needs of the educationally disadvantaged.' (21)

'the closure of the centre does not mean that the government have lost interest in work to combat educational disadvantage - far from it. Through the work of the Inspectorate and the Educational Disadvantage Unit in the Department, we shall continue to be involved in these matters ... at national level we shall remain involved in and concerned about all aspects of work to combat educational disadvantage.'

'the existence of the Committee is a clear indication of our continuing concern for those who face educational disadvantage.'

3.3.26 Our interim report was submitted to the Secretary of State in February 1981 and was published in June that year. In July 1981 the Home Affairs Committee published its report (23) on Racial Disadvantage which also included a section on education (see paragraph 3.3.25). In October 1981 the DES issued to the local authority associations, teacher unions and other interested organisations, a consultative document relating both to our recommendations and to those on educational issues in the Home Affairs Committee's report. The government's response to the Home Affairs Committee's report, drawing on the findings of the consultation exercise, was published in January 1982 (24) and in this the government undertook to respond to our interim report:

'in the early part of 1982.'

'... to explore, on the basis of the cautious approbation from consultation, with the local education authorities and the teachers and the ethnic minorities, how statistics might be collected so as to avoid the bureaucratic dangers, so as to respect confidentiality ... and so as to try to achieve the monitoring that is sought without damaging consequences, or worrying consequences.'

Home Affairs Committee Report 1981

3.3.27 The Home Affairs Committee in its 1981 Report on 'Racial Disadvantage' found the efforts being made to meet the educational need of ethnic minority pupils 'unimpressive'. They expressed particular concern about the effectiveness of the DES Educational Disadvantage Unit (EDU) - see paragraph 3.3.23 above - in the field of multicultural education thus:

'We are not convinced that the Unit has in the past achieved much beyond "informal discussion and talk" with the Inspectorate and within the Department. Its only positive achievement referred to in evidence was the establishment of the Rampton Committee, which was of course the result of a recommendation made in 1977 by the former Select Committee. A unit concerned exclusively with multiracial education rather than with the whole range of educational disadvantage arising from social deprivation would be better placed to advise the Secretary of State on questions such as mother tongue teaching or the language problems of West Indian children.' Above all, the Home Affairs Committee focused attention on the risks inherent in viewing ethnic minority educational needs strictly in the context of educational disadvantage which they regarded as 'typified' by the establishment of the CED and the EDU - a tendency which, as we have seen, has characterised the government's approach to multicultural education since the early 1970s. The Home Affairs Committee observed:

'many of the disadvantages suffered by ethnic minority children are shared by other children from socially deprived backgrounds. Some ethnic minority children do not suffer these disadvantages, and others achieve well in spite of them. There is indeed a danger of ethnic minority pupils being stereotyped as problems ... ethnic minority underachievement is not inherent in ethnic minority pupils.'

'the Department of Education and Science review their administrative arrangements with a view to setting up a Unit concerned solely with multiracial education.'

'carefully considered this recommendation (and had) concluded that, within existing manpower constraints, the present arrangements within the Department of Education and Science are the most effective means of coordinating its policy in relation to multi-ethnic education. Under these arrangements, the Educational Disadvantage Unit, acting with and through the other branches of the Department and with the advice of HM Inspectorate, is involved not only with disadvantage but also with multi-ethnic education. The fact that the work of the Unit covers both aspects does not lessen the ability of the Department as a whole to consider issues related to multi-ethnic education.'

3.3.28 A number of broad conclusions can we believe be drawn about central government's role in the emergence of multicultural education over the past decade or so. In the early days, government pronouncements appear to have been much influenced by assimilationist thinking with little real attempt to give a lead to a more positive view of ethnic minority pupil's educational needs. To some extent at least, policy making in this field seems also to have been unduly distorted by political considerations and particularly by concern at the possible impact on majority public opinion of appearing to adopt a more constructive approach to ethnic minority needs. The subsequent attempts to relegate multicultural education to an aspect of 'educational disadvantage' and to subsume ethnic minority needs within the wider 'inner city problem', seem difficult to comprehend on educational grounds and in many ways appear to belie the public pronouncements of a commitment to a broader concept of multiculturalism. It is important to recall that the establishment of this Committee, which could be seen as an attempt to give due recognition to the need for positive progress in the field of multicultural education, came only in response to a Select Committee recommendation and not as part of a central government strategy. The absence of a full response to our interim report, which was specifically requested by the government, can also perhaps be regarded as evidence of the extent of genuine concern and commitment to this field of work and indeed this view was expressed by many of the organisations which submitted evidence to us for this report, for example the National Union of Teachers, in their published evidence (27), observed that:

'... the so far lukewarm (or even non-existent) response on the part of the government to the Rampton interim report ... does not inspire confidence among teachers working in schools that the measures they deem necessary have official support and backing.'

LEA and school policies

3.3.29 In considering the evolution of multicultural education it is also essential to look at the way in which policies have been developed and put into practice at LEA level and with individual schools. Whilst there are similarities between central and local government attitudes, and in several respects, policy at the centre, for example in relation to funding arrangements, has directly conditioned local government's practices, it is noticeable that there have been a number of occasions when policies in particular LEAs and schools have varied considerably from the line of government thinking. In some cases, as with the rejection by some LEAs of the policy of dispersal, this has been because broad policy approaches have been considered to be impracticable or unworkable, or because individual teachers or LEA officials have felt national policies to be inappropriate to the actual school situation.

Varying approaches to multicultural education

3.3.30 In the absence of any detailed guidance from the centre about what actually constitutes 'multicultural education', many of the most important initiatives in this field have arisen from the effort and commitment of individuals or small groups of people around the country, for example devising their own guidelines for reviewing the curriculum or establishing working parties to discuss issues of concern. Whilst such local initiatives have clearly contributed greatly to thinking on multicultural education they have also led to the very wide variation in approaches to this area of work which are to be found between different LEAs and between schools within the same LEA. This has contributed to the general confusion as to the precise meaning and content of multicultural education. Also, where initiatives in this field can be seen as the direct result of perhaps one teacher's particular enthusiasm and interest, this has also meant that the basis of such work and the extent to which it is built into a school or LEA 'strategy' can be rather tenuous. There is always a risk that if the key personality or group of people move elsewhere that their work will simply 'fade away' without them. It is also apparent from the variety of approaches to multicultural education in different LEAs that developments in this field are often related to the presence of ethnic minority pupils in schools, with, in effect, the greater the number of ethnic minority pupils, the greater the efforts on multicultural education. This apparent belief that multicultural education is relevant only because of the presence of ethnic minority pupils, and by implication therefore, not otherwise, was clearly demonstrated to us by those LEAs we consulted, where ethnic minority settlement was confined to one particular area within the Authority who stressed that multicultural education was therefore 'only of relevance to' or 'only practised in' that area and was a matter therefore not for 'County Hall' but for a particular district/area/divisional education office.

3.3.31 It is also noticeable that the 'type' of multicultural education found in a particular LEA seems determined by the nature of the ethnic minority communities there - for example in LEAs where pupils of West Indian origin form a substantial part of the school population, the emphasis tends to have been on measures to overcome West Indian underachievement, encouraging the use of West Indian language and the employment of more West Indian teachers etc, whereas in other LEAs with large Asian populations, particularly Muslims, the focus has instead been on measures to meet the community's concerns over matters such as religious education, single sex provision, 'pastoral' issues and 'mother tongue teaching'. This 'tailoring' of multicultural education according to the ethnic minority community in a particular area can we believe be seen as further evidence that the overall objectives and philosophy of multiculturalism have been insufficiently thought out and that what provision is made, is very much in the form of a response to perceived 'problems' or to direct requests from schools or from certain communities for action on particular issues, rather than as part of a coherent and planned strategy. In many respects therefore, multicultural education at local level can be said to have evolved as a range of ad hoc measures which have been 'lumped together' under a common heading but are essentially unrelated. In fact, no less a collection of ad hoc 'emergency' and 'compensatory' measures than characterised the assimilationist phase.

Conclusions of main research studies

3.3.32 The variety of approaches adopted by LEAs and schools to multicultural education has been illustrated by a number of research studies undertaken since the early 1970s. The second NFER review of research discusses the findings of these studies in some detail, but in considering the development of policies relating to multicultural education we ourselves looked at four of the most important such studies, spanning the decade:

• Townsend and Brittan's studies: 'Immigrant Pupils in England: The LEA Response' (1971) and 'Organisation in Multiracial Schools' (1972);
• DES Education Survey 14: 'The Continuing Needs of Immigrants' (1972) (based on a survey of LEAs and schools undertaken by HM Inspectorate);
• Little and Willey's report on 'Studies in the Multi-ethnic Curriculum' (1983) Schools Council, (based on a project carried out in 1979/80);
• Young and Connelly's report on 'Policy and Practice in the Multiracial City' (1981) Policy Studies Institute, (based on a project carried out in 1979/81).

At the beginning of the 1970s there was a wide variation between LEAs in both their priorities and practices in the multicultural field. The only common factor appeared to be an overwhelming emphasis on meeting the linguistic needs of children for whom English was not a first language - E2L needs. The type of E2L provision made by different authorities varied widely however from full-time separate language centres to part-time language classes on a withdrawal basis within pupils' own schools. Some LEAs were beginning to appoint advisers or administrators with specific responsibilities for 'immigrants' but again the emphasis was chiefly on coordinating efforts in relation to language needs rather than any wider considerations. LEAs also varied in the in-service provision which they offered to their teachers in relation to multicultural issues and there was a tendency for such courses as were available to attract only specialists, such as E2L teachers, who were working directly with ethnic minority pupils. Within schools, the main emphasis was again on E2L provision with varying approaches being adopted. Where children with language needs were withdrawn to attend a separate language centre there were generally few links between the staff of the two institutions. The second stage language needs of E2L learners in general received little attention and were, as Townsend and Brittan put it, 'imperfectly understood'. The possible language needs of West Indian pupils tended to be 'equally misunderstood'. There was consequently felt to be a risk for all ethnic minority pupils, but especially West Indians, that their academic ability might be incorrectly assessed and that they might therefore be misplaced in remedial streams or classes. Although the 'pastoral' needs of ethnic minority pupils, for example in relation to school meals or uniform, were not yet found to be a major issue - possibly because schools were only just beginning to find themselves with large numbers of Asian pupils - there were nevertheless already indications of the need for schools and ethnic minority parents to have a better understanding of each other's concerns and for improved home-school links. As far as the curriculum was concerned, as the authors of Education Survey 14 put it, 'very little modification has taken place' and there was indeed little evidence that even the possibility of changes to reflect the multiracial nature of society had even been considered. Teachers were found to have had little or no preparation, through either their initial or in-service training, for the multiracial context, and to have little background knowledge of ethnic minority groups. Multicultural considerations were rarely considered formally by schools and much reliance was placed on the enthusiasm and initiative of individual teachers. Where relevant courses were available, they were often undersubscribed and few teachers other than specialists attended them. The trend of policies at both LEA and school level at this time therefore seemed to be very much in the assimilationist tradition - that once ethnic minority children had mastered English, their needs would have been fully met and they would then 'settle down' and cease to experience, or cause, educational problems. Little or no attention was given at this time to reaching an understanding of the social and cultural needs of the children or of the wider implications of the changing nature of society. The practices of this period were described by Townsend and Brittan as:

'(an) adaptation of tried and tested procedures to untried and untested circumstances.'

By the turn of the decade one might have expected considerable progress to have been made but many of the same problems and difficulties mentioned above were revealed by the two later surveys. Indeed Little and Willey's study concluded that LEAs were still:

'at an early stage in beginning the difficult process of adapting a pattern of organisational arrangements established to meet particular needs ... to the wider task of fulfilling the educational needs of all children in a multi-ethnic society.'

3.4 The relevance of multicultural education to all children

Government approach

3.4.1 At the beginning of this consideration of the development of multicultural education (see paragraph 3.2 above) we noted that one of the major aspects of the debate on multicultural education which distinguishes it most clearly from the early days of assimilation, is the recognition that the multiracial nature of today's society has implications for the education of all children, including those from the ethnic majority community. In recent years this view of multicultural education has extended beyond pupils attending multiracial schools, to embrace all children in this country, including those living and being educated in 'all-white' areas. The emergence of this broader view can also be traced through the public pronouncements of the government over the years. As early as 1963 there was some recognition, albeit in rather guarded terms and in the context of the 'problems' they pose, that the presence of ethnic minority pupils in a school might offer some positive benefits to the other pupils, as the following extract from the report 'English for Immigrants' (28) shows:

'... it is certainly true that the presence of . .. immigrant children can give an added immediacy and meaning to many of our geography and history lessons; their contributions from the arts of their countries can add interest and variety to many school occasions; their differing religions, customs, dress and food can provide most useful and immediate materials for the inculcation of at least some measure of international understanding. The presence of our visitors from overseas can cause problems, especially if they come with little English and more especially if they come to anyone school in very large numbers; but they also present challenging opportunities which a great many schools, both primary and secondary, have been quick to recognise and to accept with mutual advantage to British and immigrant pupils.'

'The arrival of immigrant pupils ... (has) ... given the schools a unique opportunity to get to know something at first-hand about how peoples in other parts of the world live, and, perhaps more significantly, have provided the opportunity for everyone in their school, themselves included, to experience a multiracial society in miniature. In this special situation, the schools can demonstrate how people from different ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds can live together happily and successfully, and can help to create the kind of cohesive, multicultural society on which the future of this country - and possibly the world depends.'

'Our society is a multicultural, multiracial one and the curriculum should reflect a sympathetic understanding of the different cultures and races that now make up our society ... The curriculum of schools ... must reflect the needs of this new Britain.'

'It is just as important in schools where there are no ethnic minority pupils for the teaching there to refer to the different cultures now present in Britain, as it is for the teaching in schools in the inner areas of cities like Birmingham and London. It is a question of developing a curriculum which draws positive advantage from the different cultures.'

Research

3.4.4 This broader dimension of multicultural education has been little researched, in terms of actual practice at school level and individual teacher attitudes; the only major project to have really attempted to review developments in this field, carried out under the auspices of the Schools Council has been Little and Willey's 1983 report 'Studies in the Multi-ethnic Curriculum'. Some broad conclusions can we feel be drawn from the findings of this project and indeed from the other limited work which has been undertaken in this field: first and foremost there appears to be little evidence of efforts in LEAs and schools with few or no ethnic minorities to reappraise or revise their practices to reflect the multiracial nature of the wider society; indeed multicultural education tends to be largely dismissed as 'not our concern', 'a very low priority' or 'likely to be divisive and counterproductive'. The concept of multicultural education being of relevance to all children, including those attending 'all-white' schools, appears to have failed to impinge in practice on non-multiracial areas, which still seemingly equate multicultural education with the actual presence of ethnic minority pupils and therefore tend to explain their lack of concern with such developments by simply pointing out that they have no ethnic minority pupils. Those schools which do feel that they should be attempting to develop policies in this respect, profess themselves uncertain of how to tackle this, in the absence of clear guidance from LEA or central government level - as Little and Willey put it, there appears to be 'little effort beyond exhortation' put into encouraging developments in such schools.

References

(1) 'The Education of Immigrants'. DES Circular 7/65 (14 June 1965).

(2) Second Report by The Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council. Cmnd 2266. HMSO. February 1964.

(3) Hansard Vol. 685 Cols 433-4. 27 November 1963.

(4) 'Colour and Citizenship - A Report on British Race Relations.' Institute of Race Relations. 1969.

(5) 'Education in a Multi-racial Society.' EJ Bolton. Trends in Education. Winter 1979.

(6) 'The Education of Immigrants.' Education Survey 13. DES. 1971.

(7) 'How the West Indian Child is Made Educationally Sub-normal in the British School System.' B Coard. New Beacon Books. 1971.

(8) 'Education.' Report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. 1972-3. HMSO. HC 405 I-III.

(9) 'The West Indian Community.' Report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. 1976/7. HMSO. HC 180-1.

(10) 'A Language for Life.' Report of a Committee of Inquiry Chaired by Sir Alan Bullock. HMSO. 1975.

(11) Chapter on 'Educational theory and practice of Multi-Cultural education.' by James Lynch from 'Teaching in the Multi-Cultural School.' ed. J Lynch. Ward Lock Educational. 1981.

(12) Chapter on 'Multiracial Education in Britain: From Assimilation to Cultural Pluralism' by Dr C Mullard from 'Race Migration and Schooling.' ed. J Tierney. Holt Education. 1982.

(13) 'The Education of the Black Child in Britain - The Myth of Multi-racial Education.' Maureen Stone. Fontana. 1981.

(14) 'Combating Racism in Schools. A Union Policy Statement: guidance for members.' NUT. March 1983 (revised edition).

(15) 'Immigration from the Commonwealth.' Cmnd. 2739. HMSO. August 1965.

(16) 'Race and Law.' A Lester and G Bindman. Penguin. 1972.

(17) 'Ethnic Minorities and Education.' (E354 - Block 4 Units 13 and 14.) The Open University Press. 1982.

(18) 'Racial Discrimination,' Cmnd 6234. HMSO. September 1975.

(19) 'Educational Disadvantage and the Educational Needs of Immigrants.' Cmnd 5720. HMSO. August 1974.

(20) 'The West Indian Community.' Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. February 1977. HMSO. HC 180 I-III.

(20) 'The West Indian Community.' Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. February 1977. HMSO. HC 180 I-III.

(21) House of Commons Hansard Fifth Series Vol 973 Col 729 15 November 1979.

(22) House of Commons Hansard 11 June 1980 Cols 757-772.

(23) Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee. 1980/1981. 'Racial Disadvantage.' HC 424 I-III.

(24) Racial Disadvantage - The government Reply to the Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 1980-81 HC 424 Cmnd 8476.

(25) Home Office Circular 97/82.

(26) Minutes of evidence. Home Affairs Committee Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. 12 July 1982 HC 405-(i)-(iv).

(27) 'Education for a Multicultural Society - Evidence to the Swann Committee of Inquiry. Submitted by the NUT.' Published May 1982.

(28) 'English for Immigrants.' Ministry of Education Pamphlet No. 43. HMSO. 1963.

(29) 'Education in Schools - A Consultative Document.' Cmnd 6869. HMSO. July 1977.

(30) Address to the CRE's conference on Education for a Multicultural Society by Baroness Young. 19 April 1980.