I’ve been doing some reading which touches on the subject of socio-economic status, ethnicity and academic achievement; while I am by no means an authority, here is what I have gleaned so far…
There is an undeniable link between socioeconomic status and academic achievement - not to put too fine a point on it, but (and acknowledging there are exceptions), the poorer you are, the more likely it is that you’ll do badly at school. And, while ethnicity is a bit more complicated (and a thorny issue), the white kids generally - on the whole - do better than the black kids.
Why?
Contemporary ‘sociology of education’ theory talks quite a lot about how formal education has, in a sense, its own ‘culture’ - there is a *way *of thinking, speaking and behaving at school which is taught, expected and assessed. ‘Doing well’ at school, at any age, necessarily involves personal and social acculturation into this this educational culture. Whether or not we consciously realise it, this ‘school culture’ is the domain of the white middle-classes; ergo, the white middle-class kids invariably find it easier to adapt and blend-in to a formal school environment than those of other cultures.
Shirley Brice Heath produced a seminal research project a few decades ago illustrating how different communities (‘Maintown’, ‘Roadville’ & ‘Trackton’) raise their children in different ways, with special attention paid to how language is used. For instance, while it is common for ‘white folk’ to ask their children already-know-the-answer-type questions (such as a mother pointing to a kitten and asking her child “What’s that? Is that a kitty?”), this is less common in afro-caribbean communities (where adults are more likely to simply ask ‘real’ questions, like "Where’s your sister?). So, in ‘white’ classrooms where a teacher asks the class “What’s 2+2?”, the white kids will know the rules of the game, whereas the black kids will be wondering ("Why’s she asking that?). Okay, it’s a bit simplified, but you get the idea…
Another interesting anecdote (it was in a book somewhere - sorry, no cite) I read was about some anthropologists somewhere (oh, let’s say…Kazakhstan) who said the following to some uneducated and educated villagers:
“In the mountains to the north, all of the goats are white. Yesterday, my sister went to the mountains and saw a goat. What colour was it?”
The educated ones said “White”, while the uneducated ones said “I don’t know, there are many different colours of goat…”
While this might initially be interpreted as evidence of the uneducated people being cognitively limited or challenged, in fact it shows that they simply didn’t know the ‘rules of the game’. They didn’t *believe *the initial injunction of “all goats are white” (after all, how would an anthropologist know that?) - it could even be argued that the uneducated villagers were showing more critical faculties than the educated ones.
So, there is a strong link between educational achievement and culturally ‘fitting in’ to the epistemological and ontological ethos of the mainstream educational way-of-doing-things. This might sound, then, that there is no hope for the disadvantaged, non-white, non-middle class masses - but students from Indian and Chinese backgrounds (say…) often do quite well, which suggests that this ‘cultural distance’ issue is not insurmountable.