These research-backed principles focus on optimizing the educational experience through the following areas:
1. Encourages Student-Faculty Contact
Building rapport and maintaining regular communication with professors increases student motivation and intellectual commitment. [1, 2]
Examples: Faculty holding office hours, being accessible via email or messaging, and acting as mentors. [1]
2. Develops Reciprocity and Cooperation Among Students
Learning is enhanced when it is collaborative and social, rather than competitive. [1, 2, 3]
Examples: Group projects, peer reviews, study groups, and collaborative problem-solving. [1, 2, 3]
3. Encourages Active Learning
Students learn best when they are mentally and physically engaged in the material, rather than just passively listening. [1, 2, 3]
Examples: Class discussions, hands-on labs, debates, and applying concepts to real-world scenarios. [1, 2]
4. Gives Prompt Feedback
Feedback is most effective when provided quickly after an assignment, allowing students to assess their performance and adjust their learning methods. [1, 2, 3]
Effective learning requires adequate time, focus, and realistic expectations regarding workload and pacing. [1, 2, 3]
Examples: Clear deadlines, time-management strategies, and structured, incremental milestones for large projects. [1, 2, 3]
6. Communicates High Expectations
Setting high but attainable expectations motivates students to push their boundaries and perform at their highest capabilities. [1, 2]
Examples: Providing detailed grading rubrics, recognizing exceptional work, and encouraging students to set ambitious personal goals. [1, 2]
7. Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning
Instruction should accommodate different learning styles, backgrounds, and abilities to ensure all students have equal opportunities to succeed. [1, 2]
Examples: Using a variety of teaching methods (visual, auditory, tactile), offering alternative assignment formats, and using inclusive curriculum designs. [1, 2]
‘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]
‘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.
Developing as a teacher: changing conceptions of teaching and the challenges of applying theory to practice Gwyneth Hughes, David Baume, Ayona Silva-Fletcher & Linda AmraneCooper
Framework mentioned in text —
Peter Kugel’s framework describes how university professors and college instructors develop as teachers over time, rather than classifying student degrees. First proposed in his seminal 1993 article, How Professors Develop as Teachers, this model outlines 5 stages of pedagogical growth. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Kugel’s 5 Stages of Teacher Development
Instructors typically move from focusing heavily on themselves to focusing entirely on student learning. [1]
Stage 1: Focus on Self
The teacher focuses on their role, classroom management, and presenting information accurately. [1]
Stage 2: Focus on Subject
The teacher masters the discipline and emphasizes their understanding of the material. [1]
Stage 3: Focus on Student as Receptive
The teacher shifts to considering how well students absorb the provided content.
Stage 4: Focus on Student as Active
The teacher creates methods to help students actively apply what they have learned.
Stage 5: Focus on Student as Independent
The teacher’s ultimate goal shifts to helping students learn and explore on their own. [1]
In this post about religion, I was particularly drawn to the Ted Talk by Kwame Anthony Appiah in which he discusses generalisations around religion and whether they are true, such as ‘Religion is bad’ or ‘religion is good’. He also discusses the ways in which religion is categorised, often through the idea that it involves belief in spiritual beings. The discussion explores the religions we commonly list: Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity, and questions how this list was originally formed.
Appiah explains that European travellers, generally from Christian cultures, travelled around the world and arrived in places where Christianity did not exist. This led them to ask: what do these people have instead? They looked for rituals or practices similar to Christianity and declared these to be the religion of that country. From this video, I learnt that Christianity is a creedal religion, meaning that people believe it provides guidance on how to do the right things and, historically, when people were not following these ‘right’ things, this sometimes resulted in war and violence to ‘put this right’.
However, during the 19th Century, science began to establish itself more firmly and people started finding ways to intertwine scientific thinking with Christian beliefs. Before this period, many natural events would have been attributed directly to religion or God. From the 19th Century onwards, ways of thinking were no longer singularly linked to religion and people began to think philosophically as well.
Appiah then discusses spiritual practices within the village he comes from in Ghana and how these were interpreted as religion by European observers. He also describes how these practices still exist in modern life, for example pouring part of a drink onto the floor to ‘share with the ancestors’. He explains that these are not people ‘stuck in the past’, but modern individuals working in banking, technology and other professions, who still strongly believe in spirits and actively participate in these practices.
This made me think about the way we ask people to tick a box to ‘describe their religion’ and the huge limitations within this process. It feels impossible when there are thousands of spiritual practices and belief systems around the world. This connects closely to the article A ‘Life Style Choice’ or a Philosophical Belief?: The Argument for Veganism and Vegetarianism to be a Protected Philosophical Belief and the Position in England and Wales by Paul McKeown and Rachel Ann Dunn. The authors state that: “Ethical and environmental vegans ‘make their choices in line with their core values. They want to live in alignment with their beliefs.’”
Image shows ‘Religion’ data sets in the EDI report from across UAL: Accessed 21/05/26: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/561434/EDI-Report-2025.pdf:
Following this video and reading the article, it seems impossible to fully categorise religion. Religious framing itself appears to be a construct heavily shaped by Christian values and belief systems. Philosophical and spiritual practices may be infinite, and by enforcing a box-ticking exercise we risk alienating students and staff whose beliefs do not fit neatly within predefined categories. A more inclusive approach may be to provide an open response box (if a box is needed at all) allowing individuals to describe their own religion, philosophical belief or spiritual practice in their own terms.
A reminder UAL states: We note that this language is contested and different terminology is used in different contexts and places. However as the Higher Education sector, HESA and Census data uses the terminology B.A.M.E. we will continue to use this language at UAL. Please note that we will be considering our language and terminology on an ongoing basis. We will continue to reflect on sector language and best practice.
Thoughts on Definitiobs of race slides: it feels like rules and regulations, laws and definitions are made by people that are not directly interlinked with these cultures or peoples – perhaps made by a privileged class that may have learnt these complexities in theory, but haven’t lived them… Maybe this is a reason why they are overly simplified?
photographic film and printing processes were for decades, designed primarily for light skin tones, and this “structural” instrumental racism and this kind of discrimination remains if we think of AI and facial recognition systems which have shown significant racial bias especially against black and Asian faces compared to white faces (algorithmic bias)
“Connecting the Dots: A Systematic Review of Explanatory Factors Linking Contextual Indicators, Institutional Culture and Degree Awarding Gaps” by Pallavi Banerjee (2024)
This article explores why degree awarding gaps continue to exist in UK higher education, particularly affecting students from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds and lower socio-economic groups. The study systematically reviews existing research to understand how institutional culture and student background factors (contextual indicators) combine to influence academic outcomes.
The paper argues that degree awarding gaps are not caused by student ability alone, but by structural, cultural, and institutional inequalities embedded within higher education systems. Universities therefore have a responsibility to create more equitable learning environments.
Key Details and Main Points
1. What is the Degree Awarding Gap?
The degree awarding gap refers to differences in the likelihood of students receiving high degree classifications (such as a first or upper second-class degree) depending on factors like:
Ethnicity
Socio-economic background
Disability
Gender
Prior educational attainment
Being first-generation university students
The article highlights:
Black students are statistically less likely than White students to receive top degree classifications.
Students from deprived backgrounds also experience significant attainment disadvantages.
2. Why the Issue Matters
The review explains that addressing awarding gaps is important because it:
Promotes social justice and equality
Improves social mobility
Benefits the UK economy
Protects the reputation of UK universities
Helps institutions meet legal duties under the Equality Act 2010
3. Main Factors Contributing to Degree Awarding Gaps
A. Unconscious Bias
The paper identifies unconscious bias as a major factor influencing student outcomes. Examples include:
Staff making assumptions about students’ abilities
Harsher marking or feedback for certain groups
Stereotyping based on race, disability, or socio-economic background
The article also critiques the idea that bias is always “unconscious,” arguing that institutional racism and “white supremacy” are often embedded within university structures and practices.
Key point:
Bias can shape:
Assessment practices
Student confidence
Staff expectations
Student support opportunities
B. Limited Engagement with Academic Staff
Students from underrepresented backgrounds may have fewer opportunities to build relationships with lecturers or tutors due to:
Large class sizes
Lack of mentoring
Limited personalised support
Feeling excluded from university culture
Research reviewed in the paper found that:
Students who feel a sense of belonging are more likely to succeed academically.
Positive staff-student relationships improve retention and attainment.
C. Students’ Views of Their Future Selves
The review found that students’ beliefs about their future strongly affect attainment.
Minority ethnic students may:
Have lower expectations for future success
Experience reduced confidence due to discrimination or lack of representation
Struggle to envision themselves succeeding within higher education
The paper emphasises the importance of:
Goal-setting
Self-regulated learning
Positive academic self-concept
Encouraging students to see themselves as capable graduates
D. Institutional Racism
Institutional racism refers to systems and practices within universities that disadvantage racial minorities.
Examples discussed include:
Underrepresentation in curricula
Discriminatory policies or assumptions
Bias within academic and disciplinary systems
Lack of diversity among staff
The paper argues that these experiences:
Reduce belonging
Lower motivation
Negatively affect academic performance
The review highlights that increasing racial diversity and creating inclusive academic environments can improve student retention and success.
E. Inadequate Support Systems
The article stresses that students need:
Academic support
Emotional support
Clear learning structures
Autonomy and encouragement
Studies reviewed showed that students engage more successfully when universities provide:
Well-structured learning environments
Clear guidance
Meaningful support systems
F. Lack of Social and Cultural Capital
A major theme is the role of social and cultural capital.
Social capital includes:
Family support
Networks
Mentors
Knowledge about university systems
Cultural capital includes:
Familiarity with academic culture
Confidence navigating higher education
Exposure to “middle-class” norms and expectations
The review found that working-class and first-generation students often experience:
Isolation
“Cultural mismatch”
Lack of belonging
Difficulty navigating university expectations
4. Theoretical Frameworks Used
The article draws on several theories to explain awarding gaps:
Systems Theory – universities are shaped by wider social and economic structures
Institutional Theory – university cultures influence student outcomes
Social Reproduction Theory – inequalities are reproduced through education
Intersectionality Theory – overlapping identities (race, class, gender) shape experiences
Critical Race Theory – racism is embedded within institutions and systems
5. Recommendations Made by the Author
The article concludes that universities must take a proactive and systemic approach.
Key recommendations include:
Diversifying curricula
Increasing staff diversity
Providing unconscious bias training
Creating inclusive learning environments
Strengthening pastoral and academic support
Reforming assessment practices
Encouraging peer mentoring and belonging initiatives
Supporting first-generation and underrepresented students more effectively
Overall Conclusion
The review concludes that degree awarding gaps are caused by a complex interaction between:
Student background factors
Institutional culture
Structural inequalities within higher education
The paper argues that universities must move beyond viewing awarding gaps as individual student deficits and instead address the systemic and cultural barriers embedded within institutions. Creating inclusive, supportive, and equitable university environments is essential to reducing these disparities.
As I work with creative minded students from primary school age to graduate age – I want to understand how we can support students within the creative arts from the initial curiosity – all the way through to graduation and beyond.
Christine Sun Kim is a non-hearing artist and mother living in Berlin after emigrating from America. During this video she discusses the impact of her non-hearing on her daily life, her decision not to learn to lip read and how her lived experiences inform her practice as an artist. She also discusses instances when she was told ‘no’ to a number of classes due to her disability – specifically art related classes, throughout her life. She later talks about the impact motherhood has had on her work and how angry she is that many Americans are shackled with debt because of parenthood, studying or purchasing a home and how different it is where she lives in Berlin, as childcare is free. It made me wonder how many artists are not practicing because of being told ‘no’ or as a result of the shackles of debt.
(Accessed 23/4/26)
Chay Brown is a transman who is also disabled and neuro-diverse. This video interested me because it touched upon many different viewpoints with regards to accessibility. He discussed physical accessibility – enabling wheelchair access, but then how sometimes there may not be accessible toilets within the venue. He also discusses other possible accessibility barriers including noise barriers and that for neurodivergent people who has noise aversion, social events can sometimes be anxiety inducing for fear of busyness and noise. He went onto describe a well-planned trans community event, in which all accessibility barriers had been considered and the organisers had included a quiet board game space on top of a disco to enable all to participate.
(Accessed: 23/4/26)
Both these video’s made me think about intersectional identities within people that may cause barriers to arts education; disability, neurodiversity, socio-economics, gender, parenthood, mental health and more. Considering my different educational hats (teach KS2 primary children, and as an hourly paid lecturer at London College of Fashion), the different ways this could impact the students learning.
For primary aged students – I ask all parents to fill in a form detailing any additional learning needs (specifically neurodiversity and disability focused) so that I can plan to support my students consciously aware of potential barriers (currently 50% of my class have neurodiversity’s that parents are aware of). This is in paralel to 20% known disabilities (including mental health and neurodiversities at LCF (see chart)
In primary education, it can be complicated as the children are still learning to be people and may not know what they need as yet. Therefore, I consider how I can make this easier for them. Whereas my higher education students may have developed more of an awareness of what they need, but I may not know what their disabilities or neurodiversity’s are unless they are willing to discuss them with me. Therefore, it seems essential that all barriers are removed for each lesson no matter what age.
