Last Updated on July 2, 2024 by Karl Thompson
In 1997 Swell Published Black Boys and Schooling: How Black Boys Survive Modern Schooling.
In this study Sewell argues a culture of hyper-masculinity ascribed to by some (but not all) black boys is one of the main factors explaining their educational underachievement. This study is an interesting counterpoint to previous studies such as those by Cecile Wright and David Gilborn which emphasised negative teacher labelling as the main explanation for differential achievement by ethnicity.
For an overview of the other in-school factors that explain educational achievement by ethnicity, please see this post.
Street culture and black masculinity
A relatively high proportion of Black Caribbean boys are raised in a lone-mother household, with the father being absent. In the late 1990s when Sewell conducted his study, 57% of Black Caribbean families with dependent children were headed by a single parent, compared to only 25% of white families.
This means that many black boys lack a father figure to act as a role model and provide discipline while they are growing up, which makes this group more vulnerable to peer pressure.
Young black men are disproportionately drawn into gang culture which emphasises an aggressive, macho form of masculinity. In this culture violence is used as a means to gain respect and it values materialist displays of wealth such as the latest street fashions. The culture views crime as a quick and easy ‘smart’ way to earn money rather than ‘hard work’.
According to Sewell, this subculture of black masculinity provides peer support which makes up for their sense of rejection by their absent fathers. It also helps counter the sense of racism and injustice they feel from wider society.
Black Masculinities in School
Sewell suggests that ‘hyper-masculinity comes into conflict with schools. It leads black boys to rejecting the authority of both the teachers and senior leaders and to them not taking school work seriously. Black boys tend to see schoolwork seen as effeminate and a bit of a ‘mugs game’. This is in contrast to the ease with which you can earn money by committing gang related crime.
However, only a minority of black boys adopted hyper-masculine identities. There were four responses to schooling identified by Sewelll, and not all of them were in conflict with the school.
Four responses to schooling by black boys
Conformists – 41% who rejected hyper-masculinity and saw conforming to school rules and hard work as their route to success.
Innovators – 35% who saw education as important but rejected the process of formal schooling as it compromised their identity too much. However, they attempted to stay out of trouble.
Rebels – 18% who rejected the norms and values of school and the importance of education. They saw educational qualifications as having no value because Racism in society would disqualify them from many decent jobs anyway. This is the group which adopted hyper-masculinity and were confrontational and challenging.
Retreatists – 6% of students who kept to themselves, mainly SEN students.
Evaluation of Sewell
Sewell has been criticised for blaming black culture for black underachievement, however, he is clear that he is only talking about a minority of boys who adopt hyper-black masculinity. He is very clear that there are a variety of black cultures.
if you look at the percentages above – only 18% of black boys are rebels, but this is sufficient to explain lower educational achievement on the part of black boys. If all of these fail then that’s 18% more failures compared to other ethnic groups. (However we would need to know what percentage of all pupils were rebels to be able to calculate this!)
The study may not apply as much today because fewer Black-Caribbean children are brought up in Lone Parent Households in 2023 compared to when Sewell conducted his research.
It is also possible that hyper-masculinity is much less significant today as it was less so today than 25 years ago.
Finally, we must note that the debate about ethnicity and underachievement has moved on on. Today black pupils get better GCSE results than white pupils!
Generating Genius
Sewell argues that the solution to black boys’ underachievement is to provide them with strict schooling that demands high expectations and, as far as possible, provide them with positive opportunities that middle class students get through their social and cultural capital. Sewell argues this should make up for the disadvantageous the underachieving boys face. Importantly, Sewell, does not seem to accept that disadvantage is an excuse for failure.
Sewell established the ‘generating genius’ programme. This was aimed at improving the educational opportunities of disadvantaged black students.
The aim of generating genius was to get 25 black boys, all from failing schools, interested in science and engineering. Starting in 2006, at age 12-13, these boys spent three or more weeks of their summer vacation working alongside scientists at some of Britain’s top universities, such as Imperial College. Sewell claims that these boys got amazing GCSE results, and now that the first wave have had their university acceptances, at least 3 have made it into Oxford and Cambridge.
They created a ‘science crew’ or a ‘learning crew’ which imitated gang mentality which motivated learning. Exposing children to universities at an early age made them think ‘university is for me!’. Generating Genius also provided the contacts necessary to get them into those unis.
Sewell argued that Generating Genius worked because it established the right ethos and high expectations. This effectively combated the disadvantages that his students black boys faced.
Evaluations of Generating Genius
The main positive evaluation is that it worked! Getting three boys into Oxford and Cambridge out of 25 is significant. Most of the rest made it to Russel Group universities.
Limitations to Generating Genius
There are lots of limitations to this experiment…
it lacks representativeness – very small sample of boys!
Lack of control of variables means we don’t actually know why the boys improved so much. Was it due to the contacts, or did they try harder because this was a unique project and thus they felt ‘very special’?
Ignores white working class underachievement. White Working class children get the lowest GCSE results of all major ethnic groups.
I also wonder whether or not Sewell’s work really gets to the root of the problem – Class inequality! Summer schools for black boys funded by charities cannot compete with the advantages the upper middle classes give to their children by sending them to £16000/ year prep schools such as Sunningdale. Also, Even if you provide fair and equal opportunities for black boys surely racism in wider society will still disadvantage them as a group compared to white boys?
NB despite the limitations of Sewell’s analysis the government awarded him a CBE and made him the Chair of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. Although some may argue this is just because the government doesn’t take the issue of race discrimination in the U.K. seriously, hence their choice to pick someone who basically blames Black boys and their absent fathers for their own failure.
Generating Genius in 2024
The Generating Genius programme is still going in 2024. However it now focuses on year 12 A-level students and graduates studying STEM subjects. In order to get on it you need to have at least 5 GCSEs with very good grades. You also have to be of African or Caribbean heritage.
NB the programme has been accepting girls for many years now!
According to this government report on ethnicity and subject choice, Black Caribbean pupils are less likely to choose STEM subjects at both GCSE and A-level.
Signposting
This material is primarily relevant to the education option, usually taught as part of the first year in A-level Sociology.
Sources
Sewell, T (1997) Black Masculinities and Schooling: How Black Boys Survive Modern Schooling
Adapted from Haralambos and Holborn (2013) Sociology Themes and Perspectives, edition 8.
You know, you might as well join the BNP if you keep insisting that there is such thing as ‘black culture’ because it’s a little strange to believe that someone’s skin colour is the reason why they have certain values and norms. Only racists link culture and race together, so these progressives idiots who think they know what’s best for the poor whittle brownies are the ones making everything hard for them by believing that education should lower its standards because they may not be able to keep up. Follow the Mikayla school model and stop your RACIST belief that educational standards should be lowed for ANY RACE or that education itself is racist because certain groups can’t handle some of the work they have to do. I’m sure in the past a lot of schools were racist, but what major study recently has uncovered actual racism in the schools, and not this ‘unconscious racism’ nonsense that you can accuse anyone of if they look at you the wrong way. These PROGRESSIVES are what is wrong with the education and you are making things WORST for minorities by assuming they need ‘good old whitey’ to save them. Treat minorities like you would whites and encourage them to fix some issues concerning family structure and the cultures some may adopt as those factors are much more likely to affect educational attainment rather than the ‘institutional racism’ boogeyman which thinks the way black girls and boys will gain higher educational attainment is if you add Stormzy to GCSE music or something. I’m so sick of all of these lefty RACIST ideology infecting all institutions included the important ones like education.
He’s focusing on only African-Caribbean boys in this study.
Indian boys?
Hi Karl, if you visit the generating genius’ website you will see that girls are included. Previous to the GG Initiative Tony ran a programme which involved taking black boys to the University of Kingston in Jamaica so that they could experience a black learning environment and academic role models first hand. Tony claimed that the main reason black boys underachieved in British schools was the lack of both this environment and role models.
Cheers
Steve Chapman