 |
 |
Hi all, I understand all the views that have been provided by colleagues in response to Dominik's email, and they are all valid. However, are we at risk of becoming distracted by terminology? Whatever we call these issues, it's the approach we take to improve outcomes for students that is important. Just the legal terminology 'race' we work with is extremely problematic, and the time taken to decide on what to call it distracts us further from actions we could be taking to address the inequalities that we see across the sector. There are institutions out there, including my own, that call it a BME attainment gap but we are looking at all sources of inequality including how the institution itself is impacting on outcomes. I would welcome further debate on how we might as a sector repackage the outcome gap so that every institution is on board to do something about it. Best wishes Min Rodriguez Head of Equality University of Hertfordshire Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Feb 2016, at 10:57, Dominik Jackson-Cole <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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