When it comes to looking at educational attainment in Britain, three key factors seem to be race, social class and gender. With the results of national exams being published in league tables a focus on the perceived underachievement of boys has developed. This has led to worry that the needs of girls are in danger of being marginalized (Skelton & Francis, 2003). These are just some of the many issues which link gender to education and highlight its importance in the discussion of the factors which lead to success in school. Similarly, social class is viewed as an important issue in education. The pervading view is that middle class children do better. A reason put forward for this by researchers from the University of Leeds and the University of Leicester is that middle class parents can be ‘pushier’ and exert more pressure on their children to perform academically (Williams, 2010). In Scotland, for example, a connection has been made between a school’s average socio-economic status and the exam results of its pupils (Willims, 1986). With gender and social class being evidently important why is it that David Gillborn feels race trumps both and is therefore the most important factor? In order to critically assess his claims, one can look at its foundation in Critical Race Theory (CRT), how CRT itself ties-in with education, his use (or misuse) of statistics in proving his point, the validity of the five-point social scale he employs and the terms of his gathering and presentation of research.
Gillborn feels that it is crucial to look at the wider issue of institutionalised racism when considering the problems faced by ethnic minority students (Marely, 2008). Gillborn (2008) considers the virtues of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in doing so; he cites its immediacy, which allows powerful insights into areas of conflict. As a positive, Gillborn notes how the starting point of CRT is a focus on racism in society and the elements of its often unrecognised...