Ethnic minority pupils like chinese, bangladeshi and indian pefrom above average when it comes to education; unlike white pupils who have made the lowest level of progress betwwen ages of 11-16. This could be due to factors that happen within the education system or factors that happen outside education.

One internal reason in the differences of achievement with ethnic minorites is labelling within school. Gilbourn and Youdel describe schools as being institutionally racist; their study found that teachers are quicker to discipline black pupils from the same behaviour that white pupils also do. This is due to racalised expectations- they expect black pupils to misbehave which will cause conflict, leading to a self-fufilling prophercy which gives white pupils an educational advantage. Moreoever, Bourne explains that black boys have a high exclusion rate due to school seeing them as a threat which means they get negatively labelled; leading to exclusion. This then prevents access to mainstream curriculum, stunting educational achievement. This is shown when 1 in 5 who had exclusion achived 5 GCSE's. However, these theories ignore other ethnic minorities and how asian pupils make academic proccess so labelling in school won't affect educational achievement (Modhood). But, Modhood ignores the influence on external factors and how different ethnic minorities get treated at home. Sewell states that asian pupils benefit from supportive families that place a high value on eductaion (asian work ethic) as it will boost their confidence in education, helping them achieve more.

Another reason for differences in achievment is the ethnocentric curriculum and how its in favour for white pupils. David states that the curriculum is ethnocentric as it ignores literature/ music that is non- european. Furthermore, Ball states that its ethnocentric due to the focus in history only being on white achievements and ignores ethnic history. Moreover, the calander is also based on British Culture (e.g Christmas and Easter holidays) which puts ethnic minorites at a disadavnatge in achievement as it ignores their needs (e.g fasting). However, this ignores how there are opportunities for everyone under the curriculum to help them (e.g gifted/talanted programmes). But, Gilborn states that white pupils are 5x more likely to be chosen over ethnic minorities. Moreoverm it also ignores hpw ethnic minorites suffer from material depirvation as 1/2 of ethnic background pupils come from poorer backgrounds, unlike white pupils where its juts 1/4. You can see these inequalities in free school meals and how bangledeshi and black pupils are the highest users whihc therefore explains why ethnic pupils from bangledeshi/ black pupils are likley ot be stunted in their educational achievement as they don't have the opportunities that white pupils do as many live in economically depressed areas with high unemployement and low wages- unlike white and indian pupils. However, this does ignore how pupils may not take free school meals due to internal stereotypes so white pupils could be elegible for fsm the same amount that ethnic minority students are.

Fuller studied a group of y11 black girls and found that another internal reason for difference in educational achievement was subcultures. She found that they were highachievers but got put into low streams so they used their anger about the low ability stereotypes as motivation to succeed educationally and created subcultures with this. However, they only conformed as far as schoolwork and relied on their own effort and exams instead of teachers. This shows that pupils can still succed if they refuse to conform and that negative labels dont always lead to educational failure/self-fufilling prophercy, but how there was still racism in school which does hinder their educational achievement. However, this ignores how black students underachieve due to a result of dysfunctional family structures, not people in education. The new right b=bele=ieve that the high rate of black single parents families (usually matriarchal) is a cause of underachievement- black pupils suffer from a lack of a male role model so make anti-school subcultures as they don't know how to behave 'masculine'. This is also shown with hwo indian pupils have a high rate of educational success as due to them resepcting authority at home, they are more liley to respect it at school, meannig they can get along with the educatoin system better. Fienstien states that parental support is the best so having a good family structure is liley to explain differences in achievemnt.

In conclusion, ethnic minorities have difference in educational achievement through internal and external reasons. But, its too deterministic to state that its just due to ethnic differences and ignores how gender and class account for differences (e.g white m/c girls get the most attention from teachers due to them sharing the same hibitus). This can be see with a critcism against Fuller's stuyd; Sue Sharpe did interviews on women in the 1970's and found that their ambitions were marriage and home and then did interviews 20 years later and found that their ambitions have changed to succed in work- so this means that if fuller did her study earlier, they could of not made the subcultures against school and could of have different results but due to feminism there has been a difference in educational achievement showing that its just not internal and external ethnic reasons for differences in education.