Is discrimination de-motivating? The case of black Caribbean boys and girls
Gillian Allen
University of Exeter
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
Improving the academic achievement of pupils of black Caribbean origin in Britain is a continuing concern for parents, schools and government, especially the achievement of black Caribbean boys. DFES figures for 2005 show that 42 % of black Caribbeanpupils achieved 5 or more A* to Cs at GCSE compared to 55 % for British pupils as a whole. While blackCaribbean girls’ results compared reasonably well with those overall (49 %), the boys’ trailed behind with 33 %.Closing these achievement gaps is vital if people of Caribbean origin, and particularly Caribbean men, are to participate fully in the knowledge economy of the future.
On the basis of evidence that low motivation may be partly to blame (Fitzgerald 2000), this paper attempts to relate the academic motivation of black Caribbean boys and girls in a British city to their perceptions of discrimination in employment. It is based on a study which examined the idea that ethnic/gender differences in academic motivation may result from perceptions of differential discrimination in the world of work.
Theories of how academic achievement may be related to perceptions of discrimination
Single response
The way racial discrimination affects the educational attainment of girls and black people has been analysed in terms of rational choice theory by Becker (1957) in the USA and by Miller (1991) in Jamaica. Rational choice theory explains educational outcomes using the logic of economics, that people make investments of time and money in education in such a way as to maximise the utility they receive from it. Writing in the 1950s, Becker argued that girls and black Americans made less investment in education than whites because discrimination in employment would mean that they would obtain a lower rate of return from it. Miller adapted this idea to explain the lower achievement of black boys than girls in Jamaica, arguing that there was greater discrimination against black working class boys than against black working class girls in moving into middle class occupations traditionally taken by brown or white people, therefore black working class families made less investment in their sons’ than their daughters’ education. Extending this idea to motivation, rational choice theorists would expect children’s motivation to be lower where they could expect greater discrimination against them in employment.
Rational choice theorists assume a single response to perceived discrimination, that of a reduction in academic motivation. They assume a static social situation where discriminationremains fairly constant, where people have knowledge of the existence and extent of the discrimination, and exhibit an essentially passive response in accepting the status quo and adjusting their behaviour accordingly.
Dual response
An alternative theory was put forward by Ogbu (1991) in his ‘cultural-ecological model’. Drawing on studies of educational achievement by minorities in various host societies, Ogbu identified two contrasting responses to perceived discrimination, according to the way it was interpreted (the “cultural model”). Where the minority had been involuntarily incorporated, through conquest or slavery, the discrimination tended to be interpreted as fixed and permanent. These groups responded by lowering their motivation, as with the ‘Stockton (California) Blacks’. In contrast, where the minority were voluntary immigrants, the discrimination was likely to be interpreted as temporary, to be expected while they were still ‘foreign’, but which could be overcome by the next generation who were locally educated. These groups, such as the ‘California Sikhs’, exhibited the opposite response of increased motivation.
Thus the cultural-ecological model allows for two contrasting responses to discrimination. The key factor in determining which response is elicited is the permanent/temporary nature of the perceived discrimination.
Learned helplessness/reactance theory
Ogbu’s ideas show parallels with learned helplessness/reactance theory in psychology. Here, two contrasting responses to uncontrollability of outcomes in a psychological experiment were identified: learned helplessness (Petersen et al 1993), or a subsequent lowering of motivation and performance, versus reactance (Brehm 1975), or the raising of motivation in order to counter the uncontrollability. Which of the two responses occurred in a particular situation depended on the amount of previous experience with uncontrollability (Wortmann and Brehm 1975) or, where the cause of the original uncontrollability was ambiguous, on the explanatory style of the individual (Abramson et al 1978). People who made internal, global and stable causal attributions tended to exhibit learned helplessness whereas those who made external, local and unstable attributions were more likely to exhibit reactance.
Outside the psychology laboratory, the experience of discrimination leads to uncontrollability of outcomes; it weakens the link between educational success and occupational progression. Thus the findings of Petersen/Brehm/Abramson could be used to further illuminate the differential responses to discrimination described by Ogbu. In Ogbu’s analysis, the crucial dimension of perceived discrimination which led to the difference in response was its temporary/permanent nature, similar to Abramson’s unstable/stable attributions. Perhaps these theories could be used to help explain the gap in motivation between black Caribbean pupils and others, and between black Caribbean boys and girls, in terms of differential responses to discrimination, which may be rooted in different perceptions of how and where it operates.
In analysing the results of my research, then, the question of whether there was a single response to discrimination (of lowered motivation) or a dual response (of either raised or lowered motivation) was salient.
Methodology
My research used a mixed methodology. Questionnaires were administered to 435 sixteen-year-olds in school year elevenin Birmingham. Schools with a high percentage of Caribbean pupils were chosen but even so only 81 young people who identified themselves as being black Caribbean were obtained, 39 girls and 42 boys.Other pupils in the sample were either Indian (133), Pakistani/Bangladeshi (82), other Asian (17), white (74), black African (11) or mixed background (37).Efforts were made to obtain sufficient middle class and high achieving pupils to avoid a focus on low achievers. Three quarters of the black Caribbeans were from comprehensive schools and one quarter from grammar schools. Roughly one third had a parent in non-manual work, one third in manual work and the other third either unemployed or not given, these proportions being similar for the Caribbeans and for the sample as a whole. Boys and girls of all ethnic groups were asked to complete Likert-type questions on their motivation and perceptions of discrimination in employment, which were subsequently scored and subjected to factor analysis to form uni-dimensional scales.
Interviews were conducted with thirteen of the black Caribbean pupils who had given assent on the questionnaire and with eight of their parents. These interviewees were selected to include a variety of combinations of high and low scores on motivation and perceived discrimination scales, and a variety of school types, achievement levels, social classes and family types (one- or two-parent). Interviews with the children were carried out on school premises by a female interviewer of black Caribbean origin, and with the parents in their homes by myself, a white Englishwoman recently returned from living and teaching in Jamaica. Interviews were semi-structured and enquired more deeply into the young people’s view of their own motivation and their perceptions of discrimination in employment. Thus while the questionnaires provided a broad sweep, enabling quantitative comparisons by ethnicity and gender to be made, the interviews focussed on black Caribbeans only and allowed more detailed pictures of individuals to be built up and the views of the young people and their parents to be expressed in their own words.
If the young people exhibited a single response to discrimination, of lowered motivation, a negative correlation would be expected between motivation and perceptions of discrimination. This negative correlation might be expected to occur over the whole sample, between ethnic groups and within ethnic groups. If, by contrast, a dual response were exhibited, there may be no overall correlation, but differences may be found in the relationships between the two variables between groups and within groups. In either case, we may expect the interviews to elucidate the relationship, as seen by the pupils and their parents, between motivation and perceived discrimination.
Findings
The perception of discrimination items on the questionnaires were subjected to factor analysis and three factors were revealed: race discrimination, unfairness and gender discrimination. ‘Race discrimination’ consisted of four items measuring the degree of perceived potential race discrimination in employment against oneself. ‘Unfairness’ consisted of five items to do with the extent to which society was perceived to be fair and meritocratic. ‘Gender discrimination’ contained three items on the degree of potential perceived gender discrimination against oneself.Correlation coefficients were computed between motivation and the three discrimination factors, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Correlations between motivation and the discrimination factors
motivationrace discrimination / Pearson Correlation / -.106(*)
Sig. (2-tailed) / .031
N / 414
unfairness / Pearson Correlation / -.159(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) / .001
N / 415
gender discrimination / Pearson Correlation / .084
Sig. (2-tailed) / .088
N / 410
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The negative correlations between motivation and race discrimination, and between motivation and unfairness, are consistent with the ‘single response’ model of the rational choice theorists. However, the slight positive (not significant) correlation between motivation and gender discrimination runs counter to it. Girls’ greater motivation despite perceived discrimination against women is not consistent with rational choice theory. This phenomenon of girls’ motivation ‘redux’ (Mickelson 2003)provides evidence for the heightening of motivation in the face of perceived discrimination, supporting the ‘dual response’ model. The focus of this paper, however, is on race discrimination and unfairness.
Differences between ethnic groups
The means scores on motivation, race discrimination and unfairness were then compared between the major ethnic groups.
Graph 1 shows the means of motivation and perceived race discrimination in employment. Whites are omitted because their race discrimination score was so low that it distorted the scale. The variables are measured on a scale from 1 (low) to 4 (high).
Graph 1
It shows that black Caribbeans had the strongest perception of race discrimination together with the lowest motivation. By contrast, Indians saw the least race discrimination and were the most highly motivated. There was an inverse relationship between the mean motivation and race discrimination scores for these three groups: the higher the perceived race discrimination, the lower the academic motivation.
Graph 2 compares the means on motivation and unfairness, and includes whites.
Graph 2
It shows a similar inverse relationship for the non-white groups, with black Caribbeans combining strong perceptions of unfairness in the world of work with low academic motivation, in contrast to the Asian groups’ weaker perception of unfairness and higher motivation. However, the whites do not fit this pattern. Despite having thelowest perception of unfairness, their motivation was not the highest, as would be expected, but at a medium level.
The previous results were then tested for statistical significance. Table 2 shows the results of a one way ANOVA on the mean motivation, unfairness and race discrimination scores of pupils from these four ethnic groups. It shows statistically significant differences among the groups on all measures (p = 0.001, p = 0.000 and p = 0.002).
Table 2 Means of motivation and discrimination by ethnic group
A Tukey’s post hoc test showed that the significant differences (p<0.05) in motivation occurred between the Caribbeans and each of the Asian groups but not with the whites; that differences in perceived race discrimination occurred between black Caribbeans and each of the other groups, and between the whites and each of the other groups; and that differences in perceived unfairness occurred between the Caribbeans and the Indians and whites but not quite with the Pakistani/Bangladeshi group (p = 0.058).
Thus the comparatively low motivation of Caribbean pupils was accompanied by strong perceptions of race discrimination in employment and of unfairness in their chances. These findings are consistent with the view that perceived discrimination is de-motivating though they do not in themselves verify a causal relationship. In particular, the higher motivation of the Asian groups despite perceived discrimination is not consistent with this explanation. In fact, the ‘dual response’ model provides the best fit with these data. For Asians, the fairly low level of perceived discrimination may provoke an increased effort in order to overcome it, as with Ogbu’s California Sikhs. On the other hand, the high level of discrimination perceived by black Caribbeans may be de-motivating, as with Ogbu’s Stockton Blacks.
A further statistical procedure was performed to elucidate the extent to which the lower motivation of black Caribbean pupils compared to the non-Caribbean pupils could be statistically explained by perceived discrimination, the multiple regression.
Regression analysis
Ahierarchical multiple regression was performed with motivation as the dependent variable. The independent variables were entered in blocks. First the dummy variable Caribbean was entered (non-Caribbean = 0, Caribbean = 1), to show the effect of Caribbean ethnicity on motivation through the value of the standardised coefficient, beta. The African, mixed black/white and mixed black/Asian groups were omitted because they overlapped between the black Caribbean and non-black Caribbean categories. Subsequently, the discrimination variable ‘unfairness’, the social influence variables ‘teacher expectations’ and ‘peer pressure’, and the social structure variable ‘family type’ (two-parents = 1; non-two-parents = 2) were entered, making four models. The effect of each block of variables on reducing beta for Caribbean ethnicity was noted. Only those variables that had the effect of reducing beta have been included.
Table 3 Regression analysis: model summary
Table 4 Regression analysis: coefficients
Table 4 shows the four models. Model 1 shows that the correlation (beta value) between the motivation score and Caribbean ethnicity was -0.162 which was significant at the p= 0.002 level. The R-square change statistic in Table 3 for model 1 is 0.026, indicating that 2.6% of the variation in motivation across the sample can be accounted for by Caribbean/non-Caribbean ethnicity.
In model 2, the entry of the unfairness variable reduces the beta value for Caribbean to -0.135, reducing the significance of the Caribbean ethnicity variable to p = 0.012. Thus part of the effect of Caribbean ethnicity on motivation is statistically linked to perception of unfairness, but a large part remains unexplained. The race discrimination variable had to be dropped from this analysis as it no longer had a statistically significant correlation with motivation once other variables (Caribbean and unfairness) were controlled. It was clearly the unfairness variable which was important in explaining motivation, although it only accounted for 2.2% of the variance overall.
In models 3 and 4,the social influences reduce the value of beta for Caribbean to -0.100, while family type reduces beta still further to -0.072, at which point it loses its statistical significance (p = 0.178). Thus the value of beta is reduced by a roughly equal amount in each consecutive model. While individually these variables provide only a partial statistical explanation for the lower motivation of Caribbean children, taken together they provide a fuller account.
The regression analysis shows that the lower motivation of Caribbean pupils was partially accounted for by social influences in the classroom, namely the lower expectations that they believed their teachers had of them and the stronger peer pressure to mess around in class. It was partially explained by the greater incidence of one-parent families, with the effect of absence of a father. However, the explanation was made more powerful by the inclusion of perceived unfairness in employment opportunities.
Black Caribbean girls and boys
Questionnaire findings
The analysis now focuses on black Caribbean pupils only. Taking black Caribbean pupils as a whole, as the previous section did, ignores the notable gender differences in school performance between black Caribbean boys and girls. This section, then, looks at relationships between the motivation and discrimination variables within the Caribbean group, and especially at how they differ between boys and girls.
There were no statistically significant correlations between motivation and the three discrimination factors within the black Caribbean group. Thus the negative correlations between motivation, race discrimination and unfairness found over the whole sample were not replicated within the black Caribbean group.
The means by gender are shown in the following table:
Table 5 Means for motivation and discrimination scores by gender: black Caribbean pupils only
Girls scored higher than boys on motivation and gender discrimination, and an independent samples t-test revealed that these differences were statistically significant (p = 0.011 and p = 0.000 respectively). The paradox of girls’ higher motivation in the face of gender discrimination is found here as in the sample as a whole. Boys scored slightly higher than girls on race discrimination and unfairness but these differences were not statistically significant.
Thus while the girls had a higher motivation than the boys, Miller’s idea that this could be explained by lower discrimination against black women than black men in employment was not borne out in the scores on the questionnaires.