As part of an away day earlier this year, the English and Media Centre team carried out audits into how different aspects of our work align with our policy for inclusion and anti-discrimination. To kick start the process, we looked at pages from a publication from our archives: The English Curriculum – Race (c.1985). We were struck by the relevance of its assertions to education today and by its boldness, as exemplified in these sub-headings for a section about ‘Anti-racist multicultural English’:
- A Policy for Equality emphasises the primary importance of an anti-racist perspective
- The relationship between anti-racism and multiculturalism needs developing
- English teaching cannot be a neutral activity
- English teaching has a history of dealing with social issues
- Anti-racist teaching cannot be separated from what English teachers have learnt about learning.
Much of this language – and the confidence to use it – got pushed to the background in the intervening years, certainly in mainstream policy documents and general everyday practice. This was particularly the case in the recent period dominated by Michael Gove’s curriculum (which was first taught in 2014 and has yet to be replaced). Gove’s curriculum changes amounted to what one teacher called ‘a whitewashing for most schools’, with a Runneymede Trust report identifying them as seeking ‘to overturn decades of a more diverse, socially inclusive and multicultural curricula’. (1)
Since the Black Lives Matter movement gained momentum in 2020, following the murder of George Floyd in the United States, there’s been a resurgence of interest in and work around anti-racist pedagogy and diversifying the curriculum. (It’s important to note that lots of schools and organisations have been doing this kind of work for many years, it’s just that it wasn't being taken up in such large numbers, perhaps due to a lack of confidence). Given this resurgence came from the ground up rather than from policy initiatives, and that English curricula are still heavily tied to a ‘traditional’ GCSE syllabus, it can be difficult to assess how widespread and how effective such work has been. That’s why we decided to carry out a survey among English teachers about diversity and anti-racism.
Diversity and anti-racist pedagogy are not, of course, the same thing. Diversity in English generally links to text choice, making sure that there is a broad range of writers from different ethnicities and identity groups who write about a similarly broad range of characters and topics. Calls for greater diversity in the curriculum have been prominent in discussions about English from the 1970s onwards, in part as a recognition of the increasingly diverse nature of British society. It has long seen it as a way to ‘prepare all children for life in a society where such diversity is functional, a source of social energy and a richer life’ (2). An anti-racist pedagogy is one designed explicitly to challenge and combat personal and institutional racism. Diversity and anti-racism are closely linked, though, and were explicitly so in the EMC The English Curriculum - Race publication, though it used the term ‘multicultural’ rather than diversity. Here is what it said:
Although it is somewhat cumbersome, we use anti-racist multicultural English to embrace both ends of the continuum: the `soft' end, dealing with positive images, achievement and validation — and the 'hard' end which involves analysing oppression, inequality and conflict.
This distinction between ‘soft’ diversity and ‘hard’ anti-racism is not without its pitfalls. It is, after all, possible to diversify a curriculum without tackling serious structural inequalities, to do the soft stuff, while ignoring the hard. Dr Remi Joseph-Salisbury, in a recent Runnymede Trust report (3) recognises the importance of both while suggesting that one should lead to the other, arguing that:
under a reorientation of values, schools would begin to move beyond the (important) racial diversification of school curricula, towards the implementation of an anti-racist curriculum. This means moving beyond representation, and the pitfalls of tokenism, to thinking about how schools can be proactive in tackling racism.
So what do English teachers today understand by diversity and by anti-racism? And how is this understanding feeding through into the curriculum? Do the two concepts work in harmony? What texts are being taught? How is language being tackled in classrooms? What pedagogical approaches are being used? Where good practice exists, is it part of a general trend, or is it an exception? How supported are teachers in making changes? How confident are they? These are just some of the questions we wanted answers to.
Key findings
The survey was answered by a self-selecting group of 91 educators, mostly classroom teachers and is written up in full in the PDF document attached at the end. It's worth reading this full report, which offers many of the insights offered by teachers who responded. Here are some of the key findings that are expanded on in the PDF.
An impressive amount of work has gone on and has been sustained
Respondents described a wide range of different work being done: adaptations and updates to curricula (particularly at KS3), training on diversity and anti-racism, reading and conversations within departments, using student voice and adapting teaching to better address issues of racism.
Teachers on the ground are doing most of the work
While respondents reported whole school changes such as assemblies and CPD initiatives, it was clear that most of the work that had been undertaken was by individual teachers or departments initiating curriculum change in their classrooms.
Overwhelmingly positive impact on students
90% of respondents reported that the impact of the changes on students was positive, in terms of their enthusiasm and engagement with lessons. This is a really promising finding.
Racism faced by teachers/students of colour is an issue
There were, perhaps unsurprisingly, a number of responses that highlighted continued inequality and struggles faced by students/teachers of colour who experienced racism in their school or workplace.
Exam specifications need root-and-branch reform
There was a clear distinction between the possibilities for diversity and anti-racist pedagogy in the curriculum at KS3 compared to KS4 and KS5. Respondents expressed frustration at the limitations imposed by prescriptive and outdated exam specifications at KS4 and KS5.
Teachers need more support, resources and training
There was a real sense that teachers did not have the support required to make sustained change. Change needs to be led on an exam board and governmental level to prevent the onus from falling on individual practitioners.
Full Report
Access the full report here: EMC Survey into Diversity and Anti-Racist Pedagogy in Secondary English
References
(1) Alexander, C., 2015. The Runnymede School Report: Race, Education and Inequality in Contemporary Britain. (Accessed on 21/9/2023 at https://assets.website-files.com/61488f992b58e687f1108c7c/617bccd5f0b573ea69b0b3f3_The%20School%20Report.pdf
(2) James. A. (1979) 'The 'Multiucultural' Curriculum'. In EMC The English Curriculum - Race
(3) Joseph-Salisbury, R., 2020. Race and racism in English secondary schools. Runnymede Perspectives.
