Race Ethnicity and Education Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2007, pp.

367385

Migration, race and education: evidence-based policy or institutional racism?

Simon Warren*
Sheffield University, UK
s.a.warren@shef.ac.uk SimonWarren 0 400000December 10 2007 & Francis Original Article Education 1361-3324 Francis2007 Race Ethnicity and Ltd 10.1080/13613320701658423 CREE_A_265683.sgm Taylor and (print)/1470-109X (online)

The promise of evidence-based policy is that social scientific research can lead to rational planning that will lead to improved outcomes and life chances for people across the whole spectrum of social provision. This article argues that evidence is politically mobilised to legitimise the reproduction of racial and social advantage and construct racialised groups as targets for policy intervention. It is suggested that migration and education policy is refracted through a politically generated concern about the destabilising impact of new global flows of people; that this involves the construction of a new racial settlement; and that this racial settlement is articulated through a strategy of managing internal and external populations. Despite the weight of evidence in relation to the educational experience of minoritised communities, which demonstrates that racism is endemic and systemic, government-sponsored policy interventions continue to reproduce White middle-class racial and social advantage. Attempts to construct a discursive distinction between old and new migrations have simply made the situation worse. They have led to a failure to learn lessons from the history of racism and oppression faced by other minoritised groups. It means that the potential of the concept of institutional racism, so hard won, has not been used to understand the experience of new migrant communities. The conclusion is that the British education system is institutionally racist.

Introduction British society has witnessed a social revolution. In fear of sounding empiricist, the facts speak for themselves. The 2001 census clearly demonstrates that Britain is, for want of a better term, diverse. Indeed, such is the extent of this social revolution that diversity, rather than any specific ethno-religious identification, should be seen as the norm against which everything else is measured. A report from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has noted that in 2004 Black and minority ethnic (BME) pupils comprised 17% of the maintained school population in England and
*Institute for Lifelong Learning, Sheffield University, 196-198 West Street, Sheffield, S1 4ET, UK. Email: s.a.warren@shef.ac.uk ISSN 1361-3324 (print)/ISSN 1470-109X (online)/07/04036719 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13613320701658423

368 S. Warren constituted the fastest growing category of pupil (DfES, 2005). Furthermore, as noted by Sally Tomlinson in a review of race, ethnicity and New Labour, census analysts predict that the metropolitan cities of Birmingham and Leicester will soon have no one ethnic majority (Tomlinson, 2005). As I will illustrate later, government policy discourses make regular reference to the changing demographic composition of Britain. In the first part of this article I argue that these demographic changes and transformations in the global flow of peoples have produced an ontological insecurity. The promise of evidence-based policy (EBP) is that social scientific research can lead to rational planning that will lead to improved outcomes and life chances for people across the whole spectrum of social provision. Given the weight of evidence about racially differentiated educational outcomes, and given that normal educational practices produce racist effects, we might expect to see policy initiatives aimed at tackling the racist logic inherent in these normal practices. Instead, English education policy plays an active role in supporting and affirming exactly these kinds of racist inequities and structures of oppression (Gillborn, 2005, p. 492). My argument is that evidence is politically mobilised to legitimise the reproduction of racial and social advantage and construct racialised groups as targets for policy intervention. My focus is on a particular policy problematicthat of the integration of new migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. Integration has become a key policy problem for the Home Office, which has hosted a series of national conferences on the issue over recent years. A range of policy documents have been produced dealing with integration (e.g., Carey-Wood et al., 1995; Home Office, 2000a, 2002; Fyvie et al., 2003). For the purposes of this article I limit my discussion to the compulsory phase of education. At this point I want to make a few comments on terminology. Throughout the article a number of terms are used that might appear unfamiliar to some readers. While the terms bear a resemblance to other terms more commonly used, I use them in a particular way. Throughout the article I use the related terms Britain and British. Britain is used instead of UK (United Kingdom) in order to problematise the normative use of UK in British academic discourse. I do this in part to signal the essentially contested nature of the political settlement referred to as the UK. Internal political devolution has unsettled any notion of the UK being a cohesive political entity. Britain therefore signals the unstable and constituted nature of the language. I also have a more personal motivation. As an Irish citizen my relationship with the UK as a political entity is immediately made problematic. The degree of ontological challenge this poses to different individuals is varied. For me, the idea that a separate country and political entity can lay claim to part of the country of which I am a citizen is troubling. As an academic with a commitment to racial and social justice I cannot escape dealing head-on with the racially and politically constituted nature of the language I use. In the context of using Britain instead of UK, I hope that my use of British may take on a slightly different hue. Within much academic (let alone political and popular) discourse, UK and British are conflated terms, dismissing the allegiances and belongings associated with the many component parts of the UK

Migration, race and education 369 political entity. I therefore use the term British in order to signal the fact that the kinds of citizenship discourses deployed by British governments in the face of ontological insecurity seek to institute a British identity, even where the educational context dealt with in this article is that of England. More of that later. The other term that needs some explaining is minoritised communities. Previously I have used the shorthand term BME. From this point on in this article I shall use the term minoritised (communities, students, etc.) to separate racism and racial categoriesthe two are not necessarily conjoined (Anthias, 2001a, 2001b). I want to emphasise the fact that it is not the ethnic category or identification of individuals or groups that locates them in subordinate positions (therefore the term minority, which implies fewer rights to claim resources in a majoritarian political culture), but the cultural logic of powerful institutions that mobilise racial categories in an attempt to normalise racial differentiation (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Winant, 2000). This article is organised into two parts. I begin by describing the contemporary moment as one of the reconfiguration of racial settlements (Lewis, 1996, 2000). In particular I argue that the mobilisation of evidence for policy production may best be understood as constituted by a tension between strategies to manage internal and external populations. Internally, new racial settlements are being forged that seek to make distinctions between new and old migrations, and certain categories of people are identified as requiring policy interventions to make them more responsible or active citizens. Externally, an economic imperative is deployed to mark distinctions between those migrants who can maximise Britains economic interests, and the bogus asylum seeker. Both strategies are understood as part of governmental approaches designed to manage new global flows of capital, peoples and symbols. The second part moves on to the terrain of education. The notion of responses to ontological insecurity due to transformation in global flows of people is developed through an expanded conception of institutional racism. Drawing on both critical race theory and Pierre Bourdieus conceptual framework, institutional racism is deployed to understand the ways in which evidence is politically mobilised to sideline racism as an explanatory concept to describe racially differentiated educational outcomes, and therefore normalise the reproduction of racial and social advantage. Policy interventions around English language acquisition and urban education are used as illustrative examples of the way evidence is mobilised to produce causal policy stories linking English language acquisition to educational success, and to legitimise policy interventions around the management of minoritised students. In conclusion, I argue that far from racism being an abnormal feature of the British education system, the system is propelled by a cultural logic of racial differentiation. Consequently, the policy problem we should be dealing with is the way the education system consistently supports social and racial advantage. Racial settlements, risk society and migration I want to situate my discussion of EBP within a critical perspective on the nature of contemporary society, in particular in relation to the related notions of globalisation

370 S. Warren and risk society. Furthermore, in outlining this perspective I want to pay particular attention to the way in which ideas of race, ethnicity and nation are constituted. New racial settlements and ontological uncertainty The figure of the asylum seeker or new migrant takes on what Frank Fischer would call an emblematic status in contemporary political discussion (Fischer, 2003). It is emblematic in that the asylum seeker or new migrant appears to stand for wider social and political concerns. I would argue that these figures appear to represent the very unsettledness at the heart of contemporary life, at least in the industrialised nation states of the Atlantic rim, as well as Australia. In British academic and political discourse this unsettledness has often been referred to as the collapse of the postSecond World War social and political settlement that ushered in a new kind of social democratic order (e.g., Chitty, 2004; Lawton, 2005; Tomlinson, 2005). For the purposes of my discussion here I wish to focus on what Gail Lewis has referred to as the racial settlement that comprised part of that social democratic formation and its reconfiguration (Lewis, 1996, 2000). The post-war period in Britain can be seen as a period of struggles to construct a new post-Empire racial settlement, in particular an attempt to disconnect race from (White) British identity and to locate race as the property of immigrant populations (Hesse, 1997). This is part of what David Goldberg sees as the elision of race from a modern European narrative (Goldberg, 2006), a racial denial (p. 334) whereby the construction of modern Europe is dissociated from its imperial projects and made the property and problem of its ex-colonies. Of course, as Goldberg notes, this is ultimately a failed enterprise. Drawing on the work of Lydia Morris, this can be viewed in terms of a tension between national citizenship and transnational rights; between an idea of national belonging and the claiming of rights in a post-national world (Morris, 2003). The struggle over racial settlements in Britain has been characterised by pragmatism, and piece-meal responses to changes in global flows of people and labour market demands (Favell, 1997, 2001). It can be argued that British thinking on citizenship and migration has been dominated by a post-colonial experience, setting up discursive boundaries between ethnic minorities already here (Favell, 1997, p. 187; see also Favell, 2001, p. 112) as part of Britains Commonwealth responsibilities and the bogus asylum seeker. One aspect of the unravelling of the post-war settlement is the emergence of new flows of migration. A number of commentators argue that the new patterns of international migration are intimately connected with the global restructuring of capitalist economies and the increased integration of all economies and regions in the flows of capital, labour and symbols (Castles, 2000; Bhattacharyya et al., 2002). The newness of contemporary migration is a common theme within British policy discourse. David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research,1 noted: Instability and insecurity are a feature of the modern world. People are moving across borders more than ever (Blunkett, 2004, p. 1). Blunkett went on to note how this sense of newness or instability was closely linked

Migration, race and education 371 with processes of globalisation and international insecurity. This sense of social and demographic change is reiterated in important government policy statements, such as Strength in Diversity produced by the Home Office (2004). In this strategic framework for the development of a cohesive society the impact of modern migration sets the scene for a discussion of policy responses:
Globalisation, new patterns of migration and the expansion of the European Union will all impact on the changing nature of our population, as will the fact that many more people now choose to study, work or live for a time outside their countries of origin. (p. 4)

It is important to state that the depiction of new global flows of people within this and other policy statements is not wholly negative. The rhetoric is often careful, seeking to celebrate the diversity of British society. This positive rhetoric has been noted by David Gillborn (2005). Gillborn argues that anti-racism has been co-opted within New Labour policy discourses, and in the process evacuated of all critical content (p. 14). He warns that the positive rhetoric of race deployed by New Labour disguises the systemic nature of racism. However positive the rhetoric, the new patterns of global migration are constructed within political discourse as threatening the cohesion of British society and challenging the national collectivity:
Hence boundary maintenance is not just about controlling the numbers who are permitted entry but also managing the composition of populations that may potentially alter the make-up of the British collectivity. (Yuval-Davis et al., 2005, p. 517)

There is, then, as part of the struggle to constitute new racial settlements, a sense of ontological uncertainty. This ontological uncertainty has seen the emergence of a language of managed migration (Home Office, 2002), whereby distinctions are made between different categories of migrant (as will be discussed below), and a balance is sought between securing Britains external borders and establishing internal social cohesion around a newly articulated sense of British identity. Rosemary Sales (2005) has noted that this balancing act involves a number of breaks with past practice and contradictions. The White Paper2 Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain welcomed migration for its economic and cultural enrichment and articulated a notion of common British identity based not on some mythic sense of national ethnicity, but on human rights legislation. As inclusive as this first appears, the detailed provisions around citizenship and nationality, and marriages in particular, introduce distinctly contradictory impulses. Sales demonstrates that a new notion of British identity based on human rights fails to recognise the experience of racism faced by minoritised communities. Also, the pledge that new citizens are required to make binds them to a notion of Britain that is Christian and Protestantthat is, it binds them to a confessional state. Fear of an alien presence in the composition of the population is contained in the continuing restrictions on family reunion contained in the new immigration regime. Eleonore Kofman (2004) argues that constraints on family reunion are aimed at restricting the growth of alien communities whose cultures are perceived to challenge the cultural normativity of the majority society. Also, these policies have an economic impetus in that family migration is usually associated with female

372 S. Warren migrants whose labour is often discounted in favour of young men or highly skilled male workers. Risk as policy metaphor The struggle to constitute a new racial settlement based on the distinction between different categories of foreigners frames the policy debate about refugees, asylum seekers and new migrants. The process of these racialised distinctions is evident in British policy discourses on migration. Don Flynn, in an insightful discussion of current shifts in policy discourse on migration, notes that a key distinction is made between the management of migration for Britains economic interests and the restriction of asylum (Flynn, 2005). This distinction has led to an increase in the numbers of work-permit holders. However, the media focus of concern has, until recently, been on the numbers of asylum seekers. This discursive distinction between good migration for economic success and bad asylum seekers is unstable, as recent political disagreement within New Labour about the control of migration from Romania and Bulgaria suggests (Woodward, 2006).3 While the increased tolerance towards economic migrants (of certain types) contained in the emerging immigration regime can be perceived as new, it also continues a tradition of the rich north exploiting the poor south. The active recruitment and enticement of skilled workers from developing nations drains them of their most skilled and educated (Yuval-Davis et al., 2005, p. 520). The British immigration regime also attempts to construct a neat distinction between economic and political migration. Stephen Castles (2003) argues that this is practically untenable and empirically wrong. The distinction between forced and economic migration is blurred because:
Failed economies generally also mean weak states, predatory ruling cliques and human rights abuse. This leads to the notion of the asylum-migration nexus: many migrants and asylum seekers have multiple reasons for mobility and it is impossible to completely separate economic and human rights motivations. (p. 17)

Attempts at constructing these particular distinctions can be related to developments in the way the management of both internal and external populations is conceptualised within contemporary political discourse. A number of commentators have noted that governments such as New Labour can be characterised by a shift from direct government intervention, to governance and the constitution of a regulatory state (Dean, 1999; Sales, 2002). This can also be conceptualised as attempts to shift the balance of risk from the state to the individual, from a collective responsibility for social risk such as employment, health and pensions mediated by institutions of the welfare state to an individualised responsibility mediated by choice and markets (Lister, 1990, 1997). Much social policy, including that for education, can be understood as being developed within the logic of this form of rationality. This shift involves the constitution of a distinction between what Mitchell Dean (1999, p. 167) calls active citizens (who manage the minimisation of their own risk) and targeted populations

Migration, race and education 373 (the at risk who require intervention). Poor investment (choice) is a private problem that is regarded as having social consequences, and therefore needs to be regulated. Different categories of external populations are targeted by the British governments managed migration policies. Some populations are deemed as contributing to Britains economic competitiveness, while others are constructed as troubling internal social cohesion. This highlights the argument made by John Urry (2000) that modern government is often about managing global flows of capital, people and symbols, as much as it is about managing internal populations. Distinctions between internal populations are mediated through concepts of risk, and active citizenship, with some groups targeted for policy intervention. The formation of policy in relation to the education of new migrant communities should therefore be understood in the context of a political concern about the unsettling nature of new global flows of people (see also Winant, 2000). What counts as evidence may well have to be considered within this framing of the policy problem. My argument is that EBP in relation to refugees, asylum seekers and new migrant communities has to be understood as partly constituted within a tension between the management of internal populations and the management of external populations. Importantly, it should be understood as contributing to the formation of particular racial settlements. New racial settlements, institutional racism, and education New Labours political project has foregrounded issues of social justice, even though the particular formulation of justice operationalised through policy can be viewed as highly problematic (Thrupp, 2001; Tomlinson, 2005). Through the introduction of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, New Labour has signalled its commitment to race equality, even though education and migration policies appear to undermine this commitment in practice (see Tomlinson, 2005 for a discussion). Institutional power and structured inequality The attempt to forge a new racial settlement structured around the differential management of internal and external populations can perhaps be epitomised by the contrast between New Labours immigration policy and the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Sally Tomlinson (2005, p. 153), in her review of New Labours approach to race, ethnicity and education, notes that on its election in 1997 New Labour was eager to affirm their view of a modern national identity which valued cultural diversity and recognised the citizenship rights of settled minorities and the inequalities they faced. While in opposition Jack Straw, who was to become Home Secretary in the new government, supported the Lawrence familys campaign to gain justice for their son Stephen, who was the victim of both a racist murder in 1993 and a failed investigation by Londons Metropolitan Police. Once in office, Jack Straw set up an inquiry into his death and the subsequent police investigation. The Inquiry report (the Macpherson Report; Macpherson, 1999) and subsequent Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

374 S. Warren (Home Office, 2000b) were heralded as watersheds in race relations legislation (Yuval-Davis, 1999). For the first time local education authorities (LEAs), along with all other public bodies, were obliged to be pro-active in challenging racial discrimination and promoting race equality, and the national schools inspectorate, the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED), was charged with monitoring school and LEA compliance with the new legislation. At a time when anti-racists feel let down by New Labours record on race equality, it is important to remember the cautious welcome, if not jubilation, with which both the Macpherson Report and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act were received at the time (see Bourne, 2001). The central concept in the Macpherson report was institutional racism, defined as:
the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people. (Macpherson, 1999, p. 321)

The response from anti-racists has been mixed. On the one hand the focus on institutional racism has been welcomed as a necessary shift from the official emphasis on individual racist behaviour, and from a focus on the management of minoritised communities to a focus on the normality of racism in British society (Bourne, 2001; Cole, 2004; Gillborn, 2005). On the other hand however, as a concept it has been critiqued for producing an ahistorical account of racism and for disengaging institutional power from structural features of society (Anthias, 1999; Solomos, 1999; Yuval-Davis, 1999; Bourne, 2001; Yuval-Davis et al., 2005). These critical voices have drawn attention to the way the report, while using the terminology of institutional racism, in its detail largely reduces this to individual racist actions. This occurs because the report fails to locate racism adequately within the everyday, ordinary, moment-to-moment practices of people, which are saturated with racism as a structural feature of British society. Utilising the insights of critical race theory, we can re-articulate institutional racism as speaking to the way racial frames of reference and racial understandings are normal aspects of British society; indeed, racism forms part of the commonsense of daily living and working (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Gillborn, 2005). Race is always present in our interactions. It is present when we buy our cheap clothes from the supermarket, in the global racial divisions of labour that permit the manufacture of cheap clothes in Third World sweatshops. It is present when we buy a bottle of wine, when the grapes have been harvested by migrant labour. It is present in academic institutions, where our offices are often cleaned by the Third World in the First. It is powerfully present in the way these racial divisions and stratifications are viewed as normalso normal they do not require comment. As Pierre Bourdieu argues, every commonsense notion, every mundane practice enshrines a point of view (Bourdieu, 1990, 1991, 2003). Using Bourdieus notion of point of view, we can extend the concept of institutional racism as it applies to education. Rather than seeing the differential attainment of students as measured

Migration, race and education 375 against an objective set of criteria, we can begin to understand it as the product of raced, classed and gendered sets of cultural assumptions about the nature of privileged knowledge and modes of knowing that are historically constituted (Mills & Gale, 2007). The particularity of Britains history is manifest in the particular forms of knowledge and modes of knowing that are privileged at particular historical moments (see Blair & Cole, 2000; Cole, 2004). Institution can be seen to have two simultaneous meanings. It can mean the instituting, or bringing into life, of a point of view, and the social institutions that mediate that point of view. As Nira Yuval-Davis puts it:
The issue of power is not one about a power that is exercised by all whites over all blacks but is about the power of the dominant group represented in the state to reproduce its own values and practices on its own terms, despite the discontinuous and shifting nature of the processes. (Yuval-Davis, 1999, p. 4.3)

The trouble with evidence A recent report mapping social inequality in education, commissioned by the DfES, took the unusual step of including in its appendices a rejoinder to analysis conducted by the very same government department (Strand, 2007). Steve Strands report is simply the latest in a series of reports, mostly commissioned by government agencies, which have mapped differential outcomes by class, race/ethnicity and gender (e.g., Gillborn & Gipps, 1996; Gillborn & Mirza, 2000; Bhattacharyya et al., 2002; Warren & Gillborn, 2003; DfES, 2005). While each report, partly depending on the particular datasets and interpretive frameworks used, has stressed different aspects of this educational inequality, there is a common narrative running through them. The core narrative of this body of evidence is that children from minoritised communities, in particular Black, Black African (which often includes many refugees and asylum seekers from sub-Saharan Africa), Pakistani, Bangladeshi and White working class students, tend to receive the least benefit from formal education. Educational inequality is also strongly correlated to social class, and boys tend to perform less well than girls. However, these relationships are complex and far from straightforward. So, what did the author of the above-mentioned recent report find so troubling about the evidence presented by the DfES? The DfES produced an analysis of highattaining students that appeared to contradict the evidence presented in the report. In particular, it suggested that Black Caribbean students were not under-represented in the higher-level mathematics examinations at KS3 (age 14 years). Strands report was significant in that it provided proof that minoritised students, particularly Black Caribbean students, were routinely entered for lower-level examinations, thus preventing them from achieving the prized A*C grades at age 16 that act as gateway qualifications to more successful routes into further education and employment. In other words, the report pointed towards the kind of normal educational practices that produced racist outcomesinstitutional racism. In the story above we see the troubling nature of evidence, particularly as it relates to race. My aim here is not to review evidence on the educational attainment

376 S. Warren of minoritised students, including refugees, asylum seekers and new migrants. My aim is to turn a critical race gaze on the uses of evidence in support of government policy in relation to the education of minoritised communities, including refugees, asylum seekers and new migrants. In particular I want to use the extended concept of institutional racism, developed above, to explore the question of whose interests are served by recent government interventions in the education of minoritised communities. Race is irrelevant One of the dominant features of the contemporary evidence-based approach to policy is the mapping of educational inequalities. This draws on a British tradition of political arithmetic which has tended to focus on mapping the scale of inequality. Increasingly, educational research has been marshalled in support of government initiatives, often driven by a school effectiveness agenda (Whitty, 2006). This can be seen in the field of race and education (see Gillborn, 2005, for a discussion). Despite the evidence of race inequality in education, the relevance of race is constantly challenged in mainstream educational debate. Different readings of evidence are repeatedly posed in ways that appear to question the relevance of racism as an explanatory concept. For instance, a recent report from the independent research council the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) argued: The great majority of low achievers more than three-quarters are white and British, and boys outnumber girls (Cassen & Kingdon, 2007, p. x). The Guardian newspaper, which takes a left-of-centre stand on reporting, ran an article that stated: The report, for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, challenges common perceptions that African-Caribbean, black or Bangladeshi students do worse than White students (Meikle, 2007). It took Nicola Rollock (2007), a critical race scholar, to point out the obvious conclusion that people would draw from the reporting of the JRF studythat all previous research is wrong and that government money should be diverted from supporting minoritised students in favour of White boys. Rollock then proceeded to draw attention to the fact that a careful reading of the report did not challenge previous research detailing racial inequality. In a similar fashion, the good performance of Chinese and Indian students compared to other minoritised groups appears to work to undermine the validity of race. If these students can perform well, then it cant be anything to do with racism, can it? The relatively high attainment of these students renders them almost silent in policy discourse, and little research has been conducted into their experiences of the education system. Within policy discourse these groups are as homogenised as other minoritised groups. Research by Louise Archer and Becky Francis with Chinese students and their families suggests that race and racism remain key terms for understanding their experiences (Archer & Francis, 2005). In the same week that the JRF report was published, the DfES issued a press release on the yearly statistics for exclusions (expulsions) from school, stating that the increase in fixed-term exclusions reflected the hard line schools were taking on discipline (DfES, 2007). School exclusions have been identified as a key mechanism of

Migration, race and education 377 institutional racism, whereby Black Caribbean students in particular, but increasingly Muslim students, are disproportionately excluded (Gillborn & Gipps, 1996; Osler, 1997; Audit Commission, 1999; Gillborn & Mirza, 2000; Ofsted, 2001a; Osler et al., 2001, 2002; Abbas, 2004; Parsons et al., 2004). Official evidence suggests that minoritised students are simply treated more harshly than their White peers. What this highlights is that the relations between evidence, race and policy are highly contested spaces. There is no straightforward link between gathering evidence and translating that into effective policies. I want to move now to looking at how minoritised students are constructed as targets for the internal management of populations through specific interventions. Causal and legitimising policy stories The recent history of British education is characterised by government-sponsored initiatives aimed at improving schools and raising educational attainment. Until recently, generally this was generic in focus or targeted on geographical areas. Some targeted intervention has been aimed at minoritised and English as an Additional Language (EAL) students through the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG). Recently, there has also been consultation around achievement strategies for minoritised students. The DfES has attempted to develop a more coherent national approach to support for asylum-seeker and refugee students. In this section I want to look at particular policy interventionssupport for English as an Additional Language (EAL) and the Excellence in Cities initiative (EiC)as illustrative examples of the process of constructing minoritised groups as at risk and therefore targets for intervention. Language support English language acquisition has been used as a strategy for inclusion and integration for the past four decades (Townsend, 1971; DES, 1985; Gillborn & Gipps, 1996). Secure Borders, Safe Haven, in its discussion of citizenship, makes the point that this means ensuring that every individual has the wherewithal, such as the ability to speak our common language, to enable them to engage as active citizens in economic, social and political life (Home Office, 2002, p. 30). Acquisition of English is clearly signalled as a prerequisite for inclusion within the British collectivity. I am not concerned here with arguments for or against English language provision, or with the relative merits of particular programmes. My interest is in the politics of representationin the way evidence is politically mobilised around racialising projects. Evidence regarding the relative attainment of students categorised as EAL is mobilised both to explain differential outcomes and to justify policy intervention. Evidence, particularly that using statistical data, is often presented in such a way that it conveys a causal story (Stone, 1981), in this case in relation to the differential educational outcomes of EAL students. The story goes something like this: the problem of differential racialised attainment is a problem of English language acquisition.

378 S. Warren Indeed, there is some limited evidence to suggest that once refugee and asylumseeking students gain a good grasp of English they make good academic progress, as the EAL evidence would suggest (Rutter & Jones, 1998). Perceived competence in English is tied in a causal fashion to the differential educational outcome of different minoritised groups. So, overall, EAL students have lower levels of educational attainment than non-EAL students. EAL students are often at a lower starting point than non-EAL students but appear to make greater progress subsequently, so that they catch up with their peers. Of course, there are problems with the certainty conveyed by the policy story. Until recently the DfES data on EAL students did not record whether those students actually received any EAL support. Consequently, there was no way of relating outcomes of EAL students to provision of English language support. Also, the data did not indicate the level of competence in English of those designated as EAL. I would argue that the absence of this information simply highlights the political way the EAL evidence has been mobilised. Recently, there have been more nuanced readings of the relations between EAL, differential attainment and racialised groups (see Bhattacharyya et al., 2002). The performance of EAL learners does vary across racialised groups, with Chinese and Indian EAL students having higher levels of attainment than other racialised groups of EAL learners. Significantly, Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean students do less well regardless of EAL status. Despite the articulation of a more careful narrative by academic researchers, the hegemonic causal story largely remains intact. The evidence is also mobilised in order to relay a particular policy story (Stone, 1981). In this case it is about the necessity of remedial policy interventions in order to address a deficit within certain minoritised populations. On the basis of the causal story outlined above, the DfES has provided schools with guidance on support for EAL and newly arrived students within the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies (NLNS; DfES, 2002). This guidance is aimed at supporting access to teaching and learning for newly arrived EAL students. The NLNS are intended to raise the numeracy and literacy standards of every primary school pupil in England. Evaluation of the NLNS offers inconclusive evidence of a positive impact for EAL students. While EAL students tend to perform less well than their peers, and greater fluency in English is associated with better progress and performance, this finding is weakened by flaws in NLNS target-setting and assessment (Lorna Earl et al., 2003; Ofsted, 2003). The target-setting and assessment features in the NLNS are technical features that can be improved upon. Gillborn (2006) provides a different, more critical, interpretation of such practices. He discusses evidence gathered for the Commission for Racial Equality4 (CRE) on the compliance of public bodies with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. Of particular importance for my discussion here is the fact that schools were not setting appropriate targets to challenge differential outcomes (Schneider-Ross (Consultancy), 2003, cited in Gillborn, 2006). Teacher assessment, therefore, appears consistently to reproduce racial differentiation in educational opportunities through the disproportionate location of minoritised students in lower teaching

Migration, race and education 379 streams and lower examination tiers (Tikly et al., 2006; Strand, 2007). It is highly likely that the flawed target-setting and assessment in the NLNS also produce racially differentiated outcomes in relation to EAL. On the basis of the evidence presented, it is difficult to disaggregate the effect of poverty from that of English-language fluency. This is particularly important given that a majority of EAL students live in relatively deprived circumstances. It is not possible to determine from the evidence whether the students with greater fluency, and therefore improved performance, are the children of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, asylum-seeker and refugee families living in deprived urban areas, or the children of professional families. Put another way, it is not possible to distinguish between the children of elite transnational workers (if they send their children to state schools at all) and those of migrants working at the lower end of the labour market. Excellence in Cities The government has put together a programme of strategies within the initiative Excellence in Cities (EiC), as part of its drive for social inclusion and to raise standards in urban schools (Department for Education and Employment, 2001). Given the concentration of minoritised communities in inner urban areas, this initiative should be of particular importance to the integration strategy. EiC comprised six key strands: learning mentors, learning support units, city learning centres, beacon and specialist schools, EiC action zones, and gifted and talented. A consortium led by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) has been commissioned to evaluate the EiC. The evaluation is complex, using surveys, statistical and financial analysis, single and cross-strand analysis, impact assessment and local evaluations. Outcome evidence from the EiC evaluation replicates the known racially differentiated patterns of attainment (ODonnell & Sharpe, 2000; Stoney et al., 2002; Cunningham et al., 2004; DfES, 2005; Kendall et al., 2005). This is supported by recent analysis of pupil outcomes (Morris, 2003). Partly due to the unreliability of ethnicity data, the evaluation is unable to make any substantial statements about the impact of EiC on minoritised communities, including refugee, asylum-seeking or other migrant communities. What evidence there is strongly indicates that the gifted and talented and specialist schools strands appear to have exacerbated existing patterns of discrimination. Furthermore, the learning mentor strand focuses attention on mainly pastoral concerns rather than institutional reform. Since my focus is on EiC as an illustrative example, rather than as a case study, I will undertake a selective reading of the evidence provided by the official evaluations. However, my selectivity is guided by the selective nature of the evidence itself. The evaluation evidence specifically reporting on minoritised students only provides data relating to the gifted and talented and learning mentor strands (see Kendall et al., 2005, pp. 89). Evidence on minoritised students in the specialist schools strand was provided by separate evaluations.5 It is not my intention in this paper to provide an overview of evidence. Neither is it my intention to evaluate this evidence, including

380 S. Warren official evaluations of key government initiatives. I am using these illustrative examples in order to discuss critically the political mobilisation of evidence in relation to what I have called ontological uncertainty. The gifted and talented strand, for instance, does not appear to have supported minoritised students in accessing the mainstream curriculum or success. It is likely that this is the case for refugees and asylum seekers. These are the groups least likely to be identified for gifted and talented programmes in schools. In contrast, minoritised students are the most likely groups to be identified as needing learning mentors (ODonnell & Sharpe, 2000). There is evidence that in specialist schools students achieve higher results and make greater progress than their peers in non-specialist schools. There have been two recent major evaluations of the specialist school strand, both drawing evidence from all non-selective specialist schools so designated at the time of the evaluations (Ofsted, 2001b; Jesson et al., 2004). While both studies agree that specialist schools perform well, they differ regarding the impact on minoritised students and those eligible for free school meals (FSM; see DfES, 2005, for a discussion of FSM as an indicator of social class). The Specialist Schools Trust report (Jesson et al., 2004) argues that FSM students benefit equally from the improved performance in specialist schools. The Ofsted report (2001b), admittedly using a smaller dataset and conducted earlier, provides evidence of an uneven distribution of FSM students across different types of specialist school. According to the Ofsted report, the majority of FSM students are in arts and sports colleges. These schools perform less well than other specialist schools, with sports colleges performing at the national average. This omission is important since minoritised and EAL students are over-represented in the FSM figures. Although the Ofsted report provides some evidence of the distribution of minoritised students across specialist schools, this is not disaggregated by ethnic group. There appears to be a tendency for minoritised students to be located in the less successful specialist schools. Data on the distribution of different pupil groups across specialist schools would provide evidence of the relative impact on outcomes for a range of students, which could be used to assess this strand. The policy problem in education is constructed not as the instituting of a racial imaginary, of education as inculcating a British collectivity, but as the inability or unwillingness of a significant minority of young people to engage appropriately with this system. A range of research studies have demonstrated how the normal practices of teachers act to exclude students from educational opportunities, whether that be through the hierarchical and gendered organisation of school knowledge (Paechter, 2000) or through such practices as ability grouping (Hallam & Toutounji, 1996; Boaler, 1997; Hallam, 2002a, 2002b; Tikly et al., 2006) and exam entry (Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; Tikly et al., 2006; Strand, 2007). These latter practices are seen to have a particularly negative impact on minoritised students, including refugees and asylum seekers (Gillborn & Gipps, 1996; Gillborn & Mirza, 2000). One way of viewing this is that the form and content of official knowledge assumes a racially and socially normalised student who has a particular relationship with the objectives of schooling. There is nothing new about this hidden curriculum.

Migration, race and education 381 However, it is newly articulated within an overarching policy commitment to social inclusion which reduces all equality concerns to raising standards as defined by exam results, and subsumes the particular dynamics of racism and sexism within concerns for school improvement and effectiveness. Another aspect of this moral economy of risk is the marshalling of all aspects of school life to raise educational standards, including pastoral systems. Pastoral systems, whether behaviour management systems or learning mentors, can be viewed as elements in the moral regulation of students, as processes of functional integration (Rose, 1996, p. 343). At risk students, therefore, can be seen to be heavily regulated by these pastoral systems of care. Indeed, at risk can be regarded as a central category in the individualisation of risk as something carried by individuals, masking the structural organisation of risk (Kelly & Joly, 1999; Ball et al., 2000; Dwyer & Wyn, 2001). Conclusion I have argued that education policy is refracted through a politically generated concern about the destabilising impact of new global flows of people; that this involves the construction of a new racial settlement; and that this racial settlement is articulated through a strategy of managing internal and external populations. In this context evidence plays a political role. The particular role it plays, and what counts as evidence, is determined by the way policy problems are framed. In this paper I argue that persistent racial inequality in education is largely framed as a problem of pupil behaviour, self-esteem and aspiration. Policy initiatives aimed at improving the academic attainment of minoritised pupils in English schools place an overwhelming burden on the management of pupil behaviour and expectations, and on language acquisition. It is not surprising then that in a major policy initiative such as Excellence in Cities minoritised pupils are disproportionately identified as requiring mentoring rather than being assessed as being gifted and talented, and tend to be located within the poorer performing specialist schools. Major evaluation programmes have failed to include ethnicity as a variable. This is shocking given the revolution in social demographics and the mounting evidence of systemic discrimination. Attempts to construct a discursive distinction between old and new migrations have simply made the situation worse. This situation has led to a failure to learn lessons from the history of racism and oppression faced by African Caribbean, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Turkish and other minoritised groups. The language of institutional racism, so hard won, has not been used to understand the experience of new migrant communities. The policy problem we should be dealing with is the way the education system consistently supports social and racial advantage. Acknowledgements I want to thank the anonymous referees for their insightful comments and suggestions, which have made for a much improved article. I would also like to thank Clare Rigg for proof-reading and asking awkward questions.

382 S. Warren Notes

1. 2. The Institute for Public Policy Research is a London-based left-of-centre think tank. A White Paper is a consultation document produced as a forerunner to the publication of a Bill which is debated in Parliament. Once a Bill has been passed by Parliament it becomes an Act and is instituted in law. Romania and Bulgaria were awaiting full inclusion into the European Union (EU). EU members had the option to open their labour markets to workers from these countries. The New Labour government under Tony Blair, informed by economic arguments, discussed opening migration to workers at both skill levels of the labour market, and was met with strong resistance from its own Members of Parliament, who feared that such workers would displace British workers. The Commission for Racial Equality is a publicly-funded body with responsibility for advising on race equality issues and policing the enforcement of relevant legislation. The gifted and talented strand involved extra provision for more able students. Learning mentors worked alongside teachers to provide academic and pastoral support to at risk students. Specialist schools are state-funded schools that receive extra funding from the DfES and private sector sponsors to develop a specialist focus such as art, technology, mathematics, or computing.

3.

4. 5.

References
Abbas, T. (2004) The education of British South Asians: ethnicity, capital and class structure (London, Palgrave). Anthias, F. (1999) Institutional racism, power and accountability, Sociological Research Online, 4(1). Available online at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk.eresources.shef.ac.uk/4/lawrence/ anthias.html (accessed 16 July 2007). Anthias, F. (2001a) The concept of social division and theorising social stratification: looking at ethnicity and class, Sociology, 35(4), 835854. Anthias, F. (2001b) The material and the symbolic in theorizing social stratification: issues of gender, ethnicity and class, British Journal of Sociology, 52(3), 367390. Archer, L. & Francis, B. (2005) Constructions of racism by British Chinese pupils and parents, Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(4), 387407. Audit Commission (1999) Missing out: LEA management of school attendance and exclusion (London, Audit Commission). Ball, S. J., Maguire, M. & Macrae, S. (2000) Choice, pathways and transitions post-16: new youth, new economies in the global city (London, Routledge Falmer). Bhattacharyya, G., Gabriel, J. & Small, S. (2002) Race and power: global racism in the twenty-first century (London, Routledge). Blair, M. & Cole, M. (2000) Racism and education: imperial legacy, in: M. Cole (Ed.) Human rights, education and equality (London, Falmer Press), 7088. Blunkett, D. (2004) New challenges for race equality and community cohesion in the 21st century: a speech by the Rt. Hon. David Blunkett MP, Home Secretary, to the Institute of Public Policy Research, 7th July 2004 (London, Home Office). Boaler, J. (1997) Experiencing school mathematics: teaching styles, sex and setting (Buckingham, Open University Press). Bourdieu, P. (1990) The logic of practice (Cambridge, Polity). Bourdieu, P. (1991) Outline of a theory of practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Bourdieu, P. (2003) Practical reason (Cambridge, Polity). Bourne, J. (2001) The life and times of institutional racism, Race and Class, 43(2), 722. Carey-Wood, J. K. D., Kam, V. & Marshal, T. (1995) The settlement of refugees in Britain. Home Office research study 141 (London, HMSO).

Migration, race and education 383

Cassen, R. & Kingdon, G. (2007) Tackling low educational achievement (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Castles, S. (2000) Ethnicity and globalisation (London, Sage). Castles, S. (2003) Towards a sociology of forced migration, Sociology, 37(1), 1334. Chitty, C. (2004) Education policy in Britain (London, Palgrave-Macmillan). Cole, M. (2004) Brutal and stinking and difficult to handle: the historical and contemporary manifestations of racialisation, institutional racism, and schooling in Britain, Race, Ethnicity and Education, 7(1), 3556. Cunningham, M., Lopes, J. & Rudd, P. (2004) Evaluation of Excellence in Cities / Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EIC/EMAG) pilot project (Rr583) (Nottingham, National Foundation for Educational Research). Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality: power and rule in modern society (London, Sage). Department for Education and Employment (2001) Sure Start: making a difference for children and families (London, Department for Education and Employment). DES (1985) Education for all: the report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups (London, HMSO). DfES (2002) Supporting pupils learning English as an additional language (revised September 2002) (Nottingham, DfES). DfES (2005) Ethnicity and education: the evidence on minority ethnic pupils. Research topic paper Rtp0105 (Nottingham, DfES). DfES (2007, June 26) New exclusion figures show schools are getting tougher on bad behaviour. Press release. Dwyer, P. & Wyn, J. (2001) Youth, education and risk: facing the future (London, Routledge Falmer). Favell, A. (1997) Citizenship and immigration: pathologies of progressive philosophy, New Community, 23(2), 173195. Favell, A. (2001) Philosophies of integration: immigration and the idea of citizenship in France and Britain (Basingstoke, Palgrave). Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Flynn, D. (2005) New borders, new management: the dilemmas of modern immigration policies, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(3), 463490. Fyvie, C., Ager, A., Curley, G. & Korac, M. (2003) Integration: mapping the field volume II distilling policy lessons from the Mapping the Field exercise. Home Office online report 29/03. Available online at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr2903.pdf (accessed 12 June 2006). Gillborn, D. (2005) Education policy as an act of White supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory and education reform, Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 485505. Gillborn, D. (2006) Critical race theory and education: racism and anti-racism in educational theory and praxis, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27(1), 1132. Gillborn, D. & Gipps, C. (1996) Recent research on the achievements of ethnic minority pupils: report for the Office for Standards in Education (London, HMSO). Gillborn, D. & Mirza, H. S. (2000) Educational inequality: mapping race, class and gender (London, Ofsted). Gillborn, D. & Youdell, D. (2000) Rationing education: policy, practice, reform and equity (Buckingham, Open University Press). Goldberg, D. T. (2006) Racial Europeanization, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(2), 331364. Hallam, S. (2002a) Ability grouping in schools: a literature review (London, Institute of Education). Hallam, S. (2002b) Ability grouping: practices and consequences (The National School Improvement Network: Research Matters no. 16) (London, Institute of Education). Hallam, S. & Toutounji, I. (1996) What do we know about the grouping of pupils by ability? A research review (London, Institute of Education, University of London). Hesse, B. (1997) White governmentality: urbanism, nationalism, racism, in: S. Westwood & J. Williams (Eds) Imagining cities: scripts, signs, memory (London, Routledge), 86103.

384 S. Warren
Home Office (2000a) Full and equal citizens: a strategy for the integration of refugees into the United Kingdom (London, Home Office). Home Office (2000b) Race Relations (Amendment) Act (London, Stationary Office). Home Office (2002) Secure borders, safe haven: integration with diversity in modern Britain. Cm 5387 (London, Home Office). Home Office (2004) Strength in diversity: towards a community cohesion and race equality strategy (London, Home Office). Jesson, D., Taylor, C. & Ware, J. (2004) Educational outcomes and value added by specialist schools (London, Specialist Schools Trust). Kelly, L. & Joly, D. (1999) Refugees reception and settlement in Britain: a report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Kendall, L., Rutt, S. & Schagen, I. (2005) Minority ethnic pupils and Excellence in Cities. Final report (Rr703) (Nottingham, National Foundation for Educational Research). Kofman, E. (2004) Family-related migration: a critical review of European studies, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(2), 243262. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998) Just what is critical race theory and whats it doing in a nice field like education?, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 724. Lawton, D. (2005) Education and Labour Party ideologies: 19002001 and beyond (London, Routledge Falmer). Lewis, G. (1996) Welfare settlements and racialising practices, Soundings, 4(4), 109119. Lewis, G. (2000) Race, gender, social welfare: encounters in a postcolonial society (Cambridge, Polity Press). Lister, R. (1990) The exclusive society: citizenship and the poor (London, Child Poverty Action Group). Lister, R. (1997) Citizenship: feminist perspectives (Basingstoke, Macmillan). Lorna Earl, N. W., Levin, B., Leithwood, K., Fullan, M., Torrance, N., Jantzi, B. M. & Volante, L. (2003) Watching and learning 3: final report of the external evaluation of Englands National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies (Ontario, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto). Macpherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Cm 4262I (London, Stationary Office). Meikle, J. (2007, June 22) Half school failures are white working-class boys, says report, The Guardian. Available online at: http://education.guardian.co.uk/raceinschools/story/ 0,,2108863,00.html (accessed 16 July 2007). Mills, C. & Gale, T. (2007) Researching social inequalities in education: towards a Bourdieuian methodology, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(4), 433447. Morris, L. (2003) Managing contradiction: civic stratification and migrants rights, International Migration Review, 37(1), 74100. ODonnell, M. & Sharpe, S. (2000) Uncertain masculinities: youth, ethnicity and class in contemporary Britain (London, Routledge). Ofsted (2001a) Managing support for the attainment of pupils from minority ethnic groups (London, Ofsted). Ofsted (2001b) Specialist schools: an evaluation of progress (London, Ofsted). Ofsted (2003) The National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies and the primary curriculum. HMI 1973 (London, Ofsted). Osler, A. (1997) Exclusion from school and racial equality: research report (London, Commission for Racial Equality). Osler, A., Street, C., Lall, M. & Vincent, K. (2002) Not a problem? Girls and school exclusion (London, National Childrens Bureau). Osler, A., Watling, B., Busher, H., Cole, T. & White, W. (2001) Reasons for exclusion from school. Department for Education and Employment research report 244 (London, HMSO). Paechter, C. (2000) Changing school subjects: power, gender and curriculum (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Migration, race and education 385

Parsons, C., Godfrey, R., Annan, G., Cornwall, J., Dussart, M., Hepburn, S., Howlett, K. & Wennerstrom, V. (2004) Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Rr616 (Norwich, HMSO). Rollock, N. (2007, July 4) Black pupils still pay an ethnic penalty: even if theyre rich, The Guardian. Available online at: http://education.guardian.co.uk/raceinschools/story/0,,2108863,00.html (accessed 16 July 2007). Rose, N. (1996) The death of the social? Refiguring the territory of government, Economy and Society, 25(3), 327356. Rutter, J. & Jones, C. (Eds) (1998) Refugee education: mapping the field (Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books). Sales, R. (2002) The deserving and the undeserving? Refugees, asylum seekers and welfare in Britain, Critical Social Policy, 22(3), 456478. Sales, R. (2005) Secure borders, safe haven: a contradiction in terms?, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(3), 445462. Schneider-Ross (Consultancy) (2003) Towards racial equality: an evaluation of the public duty to promote race equality and good race relations in England and Wales (London, Commission for Racial Equality). Solomos, J. (1999) Social research and the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Sociological Research Online, 4(1). Available online at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk.eresources.shef.ac.uk/4/lawrence/ solomos.html (accessed 16 July 2007). Stone, M. (1981) The education of the black child: the myth of multicultural education (London, Fontana Press). Stoney, S., West, A., Kendall, L. & Morris, M. (2002) Evaluation of Excellence in Cities: overview of interim findings (Slough, National Foundation for Educatioal Research). Strand, S. (2007) Minority ethnic pupils in the longitudinal study of young people in England (LSYPE) (Nottingham, DfES Publishing). Thrupp, M. (2001) School-level education policy under New Labour and New Zealand Labour: a comparative update, British Journal of Educational Studies, 49(2), 187212. Tikly, L., Haynes, J., Caballero, C., Hill, J. & Gillborn, D. (2006) Evaluation of Aiming High: African Caribbean achievement project Rr801 (Nottingham, DfES). Tomlinson, S. (2005) Race, ethnicity and education under New Labour, Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), 153171. Townsend, H. E. R. (1971) Immigrant pupils in England: the LEA response (Slough, National Foundation for Educational Research). Urry, J. (2000) Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century (London, Routledge). Warren, S. & Gillborn, D. (2003) Race equality and education in Birmingham (Birmingham, Equalities Division, Birmingham City Council and Birmingham Race Action Partnership). Whitty, G. (2006) Education(al) research and education policy making: is conflict inevitable?, British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 159176. Winant, H. (2000) Race and race theory, Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 169185. Woodward, W. (2006, August 21) Romanians and Bulgarians face immigration curbs, The Guardian, Yuval-Davis, N. (1999) Institutional racism, cultural diversity and citizenship: some reflections on reading the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report, Sociological Research Online, 4(1). Available online at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk.eresources.shef.ac.uk/4/lawrence/yuval-davis.html (accessed 16 July 2007). Yuval-Davis, N., Anthias, F. & Kofman, E. (2005) Secure borders and safe haven and the gendered politics of belonging: beyond social cohesion, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(3), 55135535.