Ray Honeyford’s Alternative View on Education and Race

In Ray Honeyford’s essay “Education and Race: An Alternative View” (1984), the author presents some controversial ideas about the implications of a multiracial inner-city on the education of young people. Writing as a teacher in the London school system, Honeyford shares his perspective about how the trend of schools embracing multiculturalism is actually harming children’s education. Although Honeyford’s sensibilities seem outdated and counterintuitive at first, he brings up some important points worth considering more than three decades after he published this article.

One of Honeyford’s major concerns is the unofficial institution of a kind of double standard for students based on their ethnicity. He gives the example of South Asian students leaving school at important points in the semester to travel abroad. He explains that, although this is a blatant violation of student policy, these students (and their parents) are never questioned or corrected in any way. Then, their education suffers as a result of their prolonged and untimely absence.

Another concern of Honeyford is the self-serving professional trend he observes in association with race and education. Specifically, Honeyford claims that both advocacy groups and education professionals have realized that radicalization will help their careers. A quick search on an academic database can reveal the radical content of educational theory today. As a result of this trend, there have been, in Honeyford’s view and experience, some misguided changes in curriculum and policy. Honeyford believes that the quality of education is being diluted because of these misplaced priorities, and he advocates a return to traditional academic content.

In order to evaluate Honeyford’s claims about the multiracial priority within education in recent decades, it is necessary to review some statistical data. In 1988, one study revealed that in both Great Britain and the United States, certain groups of South Asian students had higher academic performance than their European and North American peers (Gibson & Bhachu, 1988). However, twenty years later, another student looked at South Asian students in Great Britain and found lower academic achievement among these groups (Gillborn, 2008). In addition, the author proceeded to attribute this decreased academic performance to the racism of British teacher (Gillborn, 2008).

However, if there has been a multicultural agenda behind educational policy over the past three or four decades, then how can we explain the results of these two studies? If South Asian students were performing better academically in 1988 than they were in 2008, then what changed in the educational policies or approaches to influence this decline? Similarly, if anti-racist and multicultural professional training has been growing in popularity over the past several years, then how can we account for an increased degree of racism among British teachers in 2008 as compared to 1988? These glaring questions and disparities leave one to wonder whether Honeyford was right to criticize the direction of British education in the face of an increasing population of immigrants.

One of the weaknesses of Honeyford’s article is that its tone is unapologetic, and 35 years later in today’s politically correct climate, this can be perceived as abrasive or insensitive. However, when one moves past some of the seemingly offensive language, it becomes clear that Honeyford is not saying anything so outlandish. For example, upon first reading the article, it seemed to encourage assimilation of immigrants to British culture to an unfair degree. After all, immigrants have every right to retain their language and cultural customs. However, upon

pushing past those initial negative impressions, one begins to doubt that Honeyford disrespects other cultures; instead, it seems as though he is genuinely concerned with the population of South Asian students he used to teach. His observations about the priorities of the South Asian families at his school lead one to wonder if the British educational system was not one of the major reasons for many of these families’ decision to immigrate. If they left their home countries for better opportunities, then it becomes the responsibility of the British school system to ensure that they receive the quality education they seek. Special privileges and token gestures do not accomplish this.

Despite the feeling that Honeyford’s views on race and ethnicity, as well as the straightforward language he uses to communicate his ideas, the historical context of Honeyford’s article makes one wonder about the truth of his claims. He wrote the essay in 1984, when the movement towards political correctness was nowhere near as strong as it is today. If there is any legitimacy to his concerns, they should certainly be revisited in today’s radical and politically correct environment. This will only be possible, though, if we can move beyond our sense of collective sensitivity to racially charged language and instead examine critically the content of Honeyford’s claims.

Honeyford’s candid honesty leaves the reader wondering about whether the noble intentions behind the multicultural movement in education have done more harm than good. While racism is certainly an evil to be combated within the field of education, it should be accomplished not by establishing double standards that favor underrepresented groups, but rather by building community solidarity among students, teachers, parents, and other local figures. Similarly, it should not be accomplished by radicalizing the rhetoric and curricular content of teachers, administrators, and academics; rather, it should be accomplished by evidence-based

practices that enhance the educational experiences of all students, regardless of their backgrounds.