Dear all,
I don't know if this issue has been raised before (I did a quick search on here and couldn't find anything though) but I was just wondering if it was worth looking into the names we give to the attainment gaps, and consider the possible shift in the name we use and potential implications?
So we use the words 'Gender attainment gap' - as opposed to boy's/men's attainment gap. This seems more neutral and doesn't implicitly suggest that there's something wrong with boys/men... the same applies to social class attainment gap - not 'working class' attainment gap.
Whereas we usually (not all the time, and I know my own institution is also guilty of it) say 'BME attainment gap' - which is not neutral and one might argue locates the issue within the BME students. Wouldn't it be more neutral/ better to start using the phrase 'Ethnicity attainment gap'? After all we all have/ can have an ethnicity that we identify as... or that people racialise us as, just as we have a gender identity (not necessarily in a binary sense of course!).
What would be the implications of this? Do you think it's a better name? (of course by this name I do not wish to distract anyone from working on the actual issues - which is the gap and which needs to be addressed)
Kind Regards,
Dominik Jackson-Cole
EDI Senior Advisor
Kingston University
|