‘if teachers in inner city schools score their ‘difficult intake’ above
the national average, they are encouraged to alter results (Bradbury 2013). This system
244 A. BRADBURY
operates to systematically disadvantage children from minoritised and lower income
backgrounds, who are constituted as inevitably low-attaining.’
‘Policy can be co-opted by the unintended beneficiaries, to prove a point’.
The CRT principle of interest convergence (Bell 1992), which describes how progress
for minoritised groups only occurs when it is also in the interest of white elites,
provokes an analysis of policy based on a recognition that policy is always
a compromise between competing interests.’
‘In this work concepts and
presentational tools from CRT are used to explore how assessment operates as a selfreinforcing
mechanism for maintaining disparities in attainment at age five. This
research suggested that it is a public knowledge that ‘disadvantaged’ groups receive
lower results, and thus these lower results become the only intelligible results possible
for teachers to record; if teachers in inner city schools score their ‘difficult intake’ above
the national average, they are encouraged to alter results (Bradbury 2013).’
‘This system operates to systematically disadvantage children from minoritised and lower income backgrounds, who are constituted as inevitably low-attaining.’
‘Policy matters for those interested in inequalities because it ‘shapes who benefits,
for what purposes and who pays’ (Bell and Stevenson 2006, 9).’
Chat GPT Prompt (Question asked to help me to understand CRT): hi chat gpt please explain this exerpt from text,’A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: the case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England’…. The question of who is prioritised within policy can be framed as ‘How is white dominance prioritised?’; if we take on board the concept of interest convergence (Bell 1992), then we recognise that even legislation which appears to prioritise minoritised groups does so in a way which somehow benefits whites.
Of course. This excerpt is drawing on two key ideas from Critical Race Theory (CRT): white dominance and interest convergence.
Let’s unpack it sentence by sentence.
“The question of who is prioritised within policy can be framed as ‘How is white dominance prioritised?’”
The authors are suggesting that when we examine an education policy, we shouldn’t simply ask “Who benefits?” Instead, CRT encourages us to ask:
“How does this policy maintain or reinforce advantages for white people?”
This stems from the CRT view that racism is not just about individual prejudice, but is often embedded within social institutions and policies.
For example, a school assessment policy might appear neutral, but if it systematically disadvantages bilingual learners (who are often from minoritised ethnic groups), CRT would ask whether the policy is effectively preserving a system that works best for the white majority.
“if we take on board the concept of interest convergence (Bell 1992)…”
This refers to a famous CRT concept developed by legal scholar Derrick Bell.
Interest convergence argues that advances for racial minorities tend to occur only when they also serve the interests of the dominant white group.
In other words:
Progress for minoritised groups happens when it benefits those already in power.
Bell argued that racial justice reforms are often adopted not purely because they are morally right, but because they also produce advantages for the dominant group.
“then we recognise that even legislation which appears to prioritise minoritised groups does so in a way which somehow benefits whites.”
This is the key claim.
The authors are saying that even policies that seem designed to help ethnic minority groups may still be structured in ways that ultimately serve white interests.
For example, a hypothetical policy supporting bilingual learners might:
- Improve educational outcomes for those learners.
- But also help the national economy by creating a more skilled workforce.
- Or improve a school’s performance statistics.
- Or reduce social tensions.
From an interest convergence perspective, the policy may have been adopted not solely because policymakers wanted to support bilingual learners, but because doing so also delivered benefits valued by the dominant majority.
A simpler translation
The passage is essentially saying:
When analysing education policy through Critical Race Theory, we should ask not only who appears to benefit, but how policies may continue to protect white interests. Even policies that seem to help ethnic minority groups may only gain support because they also provide advantages to the white majority.
Critical evaluation
One thing to note for your studies is that this is a theoretical interpretation, not an established fact. Critics of CRT argue that it can sometimes assume white interests are present even when policymakers are genuinely motivated by equality concerns. Supporters would respond that examining power and hidden interests helps reveal inequalities that more traditional policy analysis might miss.
So the passage is not saying:
“All policies helping minorities are secretly racist.”
Rather, it is saying:
“We should critically examine whether policies that appear progressive still operate in ways that preserve existing racial power structures or serve dominant-group interests.”
That distinction is important when reading CRT literature.
Response:
Idea for blog post
Could cross examine and answer the questions in table 1 of ‘RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION’ Bradbury 2020) against the video in which the children learn about race inequality.
Performative ^^^?
Racism shapes careers: career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education
‘The report found that the number of white students progressing up to professor increased every year, but the number of BAME students and academics decreased every year.’
‘From an intersectional lens, Bhopal and Pitkin (2020) found that racialised minority women were disadvantaged in their academic experiences in comparison to their white counterparts, facing a ‘triple burden’ of ‘oppression resulting from their classed, gendered, and ethnic identities’ (p.709). The ‘triple burden’ can extend to other protected characteristics, represented through what Lewis and Arday (2023) describe as the ‘whitening of neurodiversity’, highlighting how Black scholars often must negotiate both race and neurotypical hegemonic practices of UK higher education.’
Chat GPT prompt: meritocracy and underachievement – meaning
Meritocracy is a social or political system where individuals advance, gain power, or earn rewards based strictly on their own abilities, talents, and effort, rather than wealth or family background. Underachievement refers to performing below the level of one’s tested potential or established expectations. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The Core Concepts
- Meritocracy: Originates from the Latin mereō (to earn) and the Greek kratos (power). In a true meritocracy, everyone has equal opportunities, and hard work guarantees success. [1, 2, 3]
- Underachievement: Typically used in educational and workplace contexts to describe individuals who do not meet academic, professional, or cognitive expectations despite possessing high native intelligence or capability. [1]
Intersection of the Two Terms
When these two ideas are discussed together, they form a highly debated topic in modern sociology and education:
1. The Myth of Meritocracy
Sociologists frequently critique meritocracy as a “legitimating myth”. They argue that it functions to justify social inequalities by making individuals believe that if they “underachieve,” it is solely due to their own lack of ability or effort. [1, 2]
2. Unequal Starting Points
In practice, meritocracy is often viewed as flawed because people do not start on equal footing. Factors like socioeconomic background, systemic disadvantages, and unequal access to quality education or resources profoundly shape a student’s or employee’s ability to demonstrate “merit”. [1, 2, 3, 4]
3. The Psychosocial Burden
Because society pushes the ideology that success is entirely a matter of talent and effort, those who “underachieve” often internalize the failure, experiencing self-blame, psychological distress, and lowered self-esteem, while overlooking structural barriers. [1, 2]
You can read more about how this ideology impacts educational structures and opportunities on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or explore sociological analyses published by the British Psychological Society.
‘Whiteness must be seen as more than an optical privilege in the workplace, but as an ecology of hostile structures and practices that shape what we consider to be daily norms.’
‘highlight the damaging norms whiteness creates, such as defensiveness to quell new ideas, conflating open conflict with being impolite, desire for individual competitive credit, and believing that those in power have a right to emotional and psychological comfort.’
‘As a ‘Black’ researcher in areas of racial identity, she had a positive reception when speaking about race from her department, but when she was ‘bringing up issues of neurodiversity or ablism in academia’ she was told to ‘let other people talk about it’ from individuals in influential ‘decision making positions’. Her experience with being ‘Black’ and ‘neurodivergent’ meant she was seen as a ‘race expert’, but her intersectional identity was erased. This was also reflected in her experience getting reasonable adjustments in her PhD, arguing that if the university ‘can’t even follow my reasonable adjustments as a student, I doubt [they’d] be able to if I was a lecturer’. Ekam shared a similar sentiment who said their neurodivergence was ‘underplayed’ because they were seen as an ‘organised’ person and felt tensions with ‘the racialised part of [their] identity. when discussing neurodivergent matters. Ekam felt the university was not going to take their neurodivergence seriously as they were able to ‘mask’ or assimilate to their environment, but it ‘takes a lot for [them] to be this way’’
‘Other visibly marginalised participants such as Maya and Jasmine expressed how the university used them as a ‘poster child’ for diversity, taking their racial identity but not valuing them as researchers.’
‘As a PhD with very international experiences, she described UK academia as a ‘crumbling infrastructure’ and questioned ‘you motherfuckers conquered half the world how?’, questioning the colonial structures that have shaped the individualistic practices PhDs endure (Jones and Okun 2001).’
‘Jaden summarised how Blackness can be experienced in research when giving advice to future Black PhD researchers, as whiteness ‘needs 100 reasons to give you [an opportunity] but only one to take it away … you need to make sure you’re excellent’.’
‘didn’t realise how different having an Asian supervisor would be until I had one’. This also made her reflect that her‘other supervisors are really white’, showing how whiteness is only exposed when it is not normalised. Because of this, she had ‘never really thought that having an Asian supervisor would mean anything to me or make a difference, but I was like this is actually quite powerful’ to have what she described as ‘ethnic solidarity’.’
It was important for the participants to not only have a mentor, but a mentor who could understand their marginalised, racialised experiences.