From the time of their existence supplementary schools have impacted the lives of thousands of children, been the catalyst for public debates and have constituted a powerful form of agency for communities that can often find themselves situated at the margins of British society. For decades, ethnic minority communities have been schooling from the margins, initiating and maintaining their own independently run institutions beyond the confines of mainstream education ; yet, this mode of schooling has remained relatively invisible and under-researched. Supplementary schools are community-based institutions that are typically established and run by ethnic minority community members. These schools are both complex and diverse, teaching a plethora of academic and non-academic subjects. The field is further complicated by the various implicit social identity projects in operation within these schools, which involve direct and indirect shaping, construction and promotion of community identities. These efforts are often not immediately detectable but are embedded within the everyday processes of school life and therefore can be considered part of the hidden curriculum of supplementary schooling.
Within this book the investigation of school purposes features as an entering wedge, bringing to light school positionings which in turn reveal the processes of identity construction employed within individual schools. Beyond their role in the delivery of education, supplementary schools act as sites of identity construction through which the community identity is preserved, defended, renegotiated and reconstructed in light of discourses circulating within the wider society. The various ways in which identities are constructed within these schools are indicative of the acculturation experiences of ethnic minority communities and the way in which these communities negotiate residence in one country whilst having roots in another. Altogether this book will show that far from just being novel educational spaces, supplementary schools are in fact complex socio-political enterprises that exist within and respond to multiple historical, social and political discourses and that these discourses are mediated through the construction of community identities.
As diversity in Britain has increased, so has the focus on the identity of both recent and long-standing ethnic minority communities and their positioning within British society. Racial and ethnic diversity in Britain first arose as a major concern during the mid-1900s when immigrants from the commonwealth arrived in Britain in the aftermath of World War II. It was at this time that ethnic diversity in Britain began to shape the construction of public policy (Vertovec 2007). Since then, both political and populist discourses, with regard to the management of diversity, have taken various turns. Initially, the early assimilationist approach advocated that newcomers should quickly blend into British society (Leung and Franson 2001; Craft 1984; Jeffcoate 1984) and, as indicated by the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council (1964), make the necessary adjustments to harmonise with established cultural trends (Grosvenor 1997). This carried with it the idea of a cultural hierarchy, with the traditions and values of immigrant communities being perceived as inferior to those of the British host society.
Within the British education system, this assimilationist drive manifested itself in various policy measures. Educational policies during the 1960s, for instance, reflected a major drive towards the teaching of English to non-English speakers, as the lack of English language skills was thought to be a major obstacle to assimilation (Leung and Franson 2001). This was a period focused on education for continuity as opposed to diversity or plurality, in which immigrant students were taught how to be British (Jeffcoate 1984). The assimilationist ideology, which was guised in various discourses, eventually gave way to the multiculturalist agenda. In contrast to assimilation, multiculturalism advocated a greater awareness and tolerance towards a wide range of cultures. There were and are, of course, varying degrees of this awareness and tolerance, and what is considered to be an appropriate level of awareness and tolerance is variable. Nevertheless, these two elements form the basis of multiculturalism. In terms of its impact on the education system, the multiculturalist turn during the 1980s led to an increased awareness of multilingualism, the perception of bilingualism as a possible advantage (Leung and Franson 2001) and the establishment of initiatives to improve the knowledge of teachers regarding the teaching of ethnic minority groups (Tomlinson 2005a).
However, recently, multiculturalism has been declared ineffective, and some have even proclaimed its death (Pathak 2008; Fekete 2004). This paradigm shift has occurred amidst heightening concerns surrounding the increasing numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers residing in Britain, concerns and fears regarding the establishment of ethnic ghettos and instances of social unrest in recent years, in areas such as Oldham and Burnham and following the Bradford race riots in 2001 (Letki 2008), coupled with the ongoing threat of global terrorism . Such events have brought the relationship between ethnic diversity and community cohesion into sharp political focus, and many have now concluded that diversity, in fact, poses a threat to the building of cohesive communities. Within this perspective, it is felt that community cohesion requires high levels of homogeneity, which in this particular case constitutes a unifying British culture, including shared values and objectives; in fact, the concept of ‘British values’ is now widely accepted and valued within state schools. It is thought that the levels of unification required in order to establish community cohesion cannot be attained within communities characterised by ethnic, cultural and religious diversity because these dimensions of diversity reduce both the frequency of interaction between individuals and the levels of interpersonal trust (Letki 2008).
Britain has been said to have exercised a community-based integration model, characterised by pluralist and multiculturalist ideals and encompassing the recognition and accommodation for ethnic community rights (Triandafyllidou et al. 2011). However, there is now widespread denunciation of this approach to diversity (Byrne 2017) and the subsequent revival of traditional assimilationist versions of integration. The implementation of the ‘life in the UK’ test and the testing of applicant’s knowledge of English, as prerequisites for citizenship in the UK, can certainly be seen to be reflective of the questioning of multiculturalism, now prevalent across Europe (Byrne 2017). The UK citizenship assessment process is also in line with the trend towards assimilationist integration in that it can be viewed as a measure to reduce public anxiety by requiring applicants to evidence their suitability for citizenship and levels of propriety (Byrne 2017).
At the very base of this highly emotive debate are the issues of national identity and the management of its preservation in light of the evermore pressing demands of the pluralist society in which the political and social needs of a diverse range of communities need to be accommodated. This involves the reformulation of policies and also certain practical adjustments in aspects of everyday living, such as the strict division of genders in order to accommodate certain religious groups. Such conditions have conjured the feeling that national identity can no longer be assumed, but must be established, reaffirmed, exerted and even fought for. In extreme cases, this has, of course, resulted in the establishment of far-right political groups such as the British National Party and the National Front, and more recently the English Defence League (EDL).
Of course, concerns with regard to identity are also held within ethnic minority communities. Members often feel a sense of belonging to the countries from which they originated and seek to reflect this through the perpetuation of certain cultural traditions that are representative of life in those countries and are therefore emblematic of their homeland identities. Current sociological literature implies that these geographic and territorial attachments are key aspects of modern self-identity that aid in the establishment and maintenance of ontological security (Giddens 1999) and provide the necessary components for the ordering of life (Phillips 2002). It is indeed natural for immigrants to feel a sense of loyalty to their home country and to express this loyalty in some way. This often becomes particularly important for community members living outside of the home country who may seek to enact particular aspects of life in the homeland as a means of preserving the community identity from the force of the dominant culture . Such enactments, which may include the use of a community language or the practising of certain cultural traditions , give life to the ethnic community identity which otherwise exists as an abstract assertion (Alba 1990).
The expression of certain cultural traits also determines whether or not an individual is classed as a group member (Bath 1969). Blommaert and Varis (2011) speak of the use of certain emblematic resources as confirmation of authentic group membership . These resources include the use or practice of certain languages or customs such as respect for elderly members of the community. The display of such traits serves in creating ethnic group boundaries and establishing group distinctiveness not only in light of the dominant culture but also within the plethora of ethnic communities existing within the multicultural society. The perpetuation of certain cultural and linguistic practices is also a means by which the diasporic community maintains connections with the homeland and therefore bears much importance in this respect.
Whilst there is a widely held belief that multiculturalism is divisive and constitutes a breeding ground for social threats, there are some writers and theorists who perceive this view to have resulted from a rather narrow and short-sighted interpretation of current social problems. The construction of an identity through the maintenance of transnational ties may seem to be a separatist act, but Joly argues that this is in fact an effort to establish a place within the host society. Joly suggests that the ethnic minority community pursues the project of self-perpetuation not as a self-segregated entity, intentionally existing on the margins of society, but as one fighting for a legitimate place within the society with relevant rights, including the right to self-preservation (Joly 2004). In this sense, ethnic community identity building can be seen to be multifaceted and hugely important to community settlement.
In light of these current debates, it is important to understand the construction of ethnic minority community identity , as it relates to the cultural and psychological adjustments that take place when an immigrant community comes into contact with a host society, a reality referred to throughout this book as acculturation . This book seeks to contribute to understandings in this area through the examination of supplementary schooling . It will be argued that, as institutions established and run by the ethnic minority communities , suppl...