White disadvantaged pupils failed for decades - a national scandal

*The culture war is a form of lying about what doesn't exist to render what does exist invisible.

It's obscene.*

THIS X 1,000,000

TheHoneyBadger
I was thinking the same.
I've worked in outstanding schools and in more challenging schools. In all outstanding schools there's been some colleagues who would be given nice middle set classes and no challenging students. They weren't strong enough to get the top grades needed from high sets, weren't effective enough to work with the lower sets, and in an affluent area the parents will pay for private tutoring in Year 11 anyway. They'll never move to another school because they're too comfy and couldn't hack it in a more challenging school.

I'm going to hazard a generalisation from my limited knowledge that London also has a lot more social housing, built in central areas with great public transport links on the doorstep.

Kids in London also benefit from a whole lot of local universities allowing them to stay at home and access free/highly subsidised quality public transport making uni a hell of a lot cheaper and accessible than it is for kids living out of London in areas with expensive, irregular public transport and one piss poor yet charging 9k a year anyway university 20 miles away.

Apples and pears really.

Hmm so a teacher who worked at an outstanding school for a year and was at mps4 would be classified as an outstanding teacher. Hm'ok.

They might get a shock with this and realise that good schools actually often harbour a lot of shit teachers who knew they were onto a good thing and never left for fear of not being able to cope in a more challenging school with a broader demographic.

Funnily enough a lot of 'outstanding teachers' work in really challenging schools with very difficult intakes.

I don't think London schools are rolling in it, but I do think as with many things London has been a priority for central government when other regions are forgotten.

The government will fund whatever they think will get them the votes, and none of it involves caring about schools or children.

Honestly, it's all scraps, Lola. Believe me, London schools aren't gambolling in money.

London pupils don't come in wearing gold shoes.

All across the education sector we're being asked to deal with more whilst we have less.

In education, everything comes through our doors: benefit cuts to families - we deal with it; cuts to MH services - we deal with it; cuts to youth services - we deal with it.

We, in education, do that. Together.

And we stand together, refusing to take part in a fight with each other, over scraps, because unless we stand together, we are hopelessly weakened in our resistance.

Results of the last time the Conservatives fed a 'North versus South, London is over-funded' culture war and 're-organised' funding in response:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/boris-johnson-school-funding-cuts-national-education-union-constituencies-general-election-a9195621.html%3famp

Though I think Quentin is right about his this particular narrative will go.

As Piggy's link suggests.

You might be right quentin.
I'm no expert on regional school funding differences, but it frustrates me to read about how great outcomes are in London when London schools (to the best of my knowledge) have had all manner of initiatives and money thrown at them for years, meanwhile there's lots of schools in the Midlands and North who are struggling.

Can't help but feel Quentin's on the money here.

Yup

www.tes.com/news/pay-teachers-ps10k-top-work-weaker-schools-disadvantage

I think they want to divert funding from S to N and are creating the narrative that allows that. So I'd expect schools in London and Birmingham to lose funding, but it to be justified as the higher % BAME children don't need it.

They probably are fingers crossed that the Tory heartlands don't really care which working class areas get the pitifulfunding increase and won't punish them for abandoning inner city schools.

I think it's a combination of lots of factors. As with everything in life.
I agree with you but I still think aspiration has a part to play. I see lots of nice kids, boys especially, affected by toxic masculinity and peer pressure to the effect that reading and doing well at school, or being nice and polite, or doing things like performing solo or giving a speech in front of the class, or doing things that benefit the wider community, isn't"cool", and that's nothing to do with structural factors. So while I accept that it isn't purely a matter of individual attitude I refuse to accept that it doesn't often play it's part.

Maybe.

I think they might increase funding in a few token seats e.g. like Hartlepool, just so that they can make a big show of it. But otherwise - no.

The problem here of course is that the BAME community in Hartlepool and surrounding areas is not very big, so it's going to be hard to blame them for the failures of white working class children.

Just a thought...

Do conservatives know they have to increase schools funding and investment but not want to admit it's fucked because of their cuts or put off their traditional voters by increasing public spending and funding it with money from the 'magic money tree' they bash labour governments for? Are they therefore trying to create a situation of perceived injustice for white kids to pre-appease their voters before upping funding?

Even as I was typing that a voice in my head was going, ha! as if they're going to increase school funding. So I guess it's unlikely.

I mean, look at this - a pinned thread on MN today: Guest post: “Our investigation found that ministers knowingly underfunded childcare - and parents have been paying the price.” http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts/4279300-Guest-post-Our-investigation-found-that-ministers-knowingly-underfunded-childcare-and-parents-have-been-paying-the-price

The cuts are everywhere.

The cuts are real-term cuts, benefit caps, funding and investment that didn't happen, invisible cuts.

All of them have an impact - whether it's on the wages of the working poor (which then impacts families), on the provision of early-years education and services ...

This is what impacts on children's life-chances and achievements.

Not some bloody imaginary figures who are - bizarrely - running things from the shadows.

Common sense, people. If this shadowy woke cabal has so much power, how come the Conservatives have been governing so long?

Indeed, if this shadowy woke cabal have so much power, what is the government anyway? why bother having a government when things are actually determined by a shadowy woke cabal?

No. It's nonsense. And, really, we know it's nonsense.

And to come back to the report.

It clearly isn't the case that an invisible army of woke educators have done down white working class boys because they believe in 'white privilege'.

Or that an 'industry' exists to promote the interests of BAME children above those of white working class boys.

Those two figures of blame are chimearae - they don't exist.

The Conservatives have been in government for bloody years.

The situation that exists is the responsibility of them - and them alone.

They have engineered this situation.

Blaming it on anyone else is a nonsense.

So let's not fall for it.

There's plenty stopping all children in poverty achieving.

Indeed, I'd say that social mobility hasn't just slowed down, it's gone into reverse - which is why so many graduates are angry.

I don't think you mean to. Grellbunt, but this is why the 'arguing over scraps' thing is so pernicious - you end up claiming that there is nothing holding anyone back, and if people just try hard enough, they can all succeed.

Which is palpably not the case.

Of course structural racism exists.

Of course poverty and inequality impact on children's life-chances.

Not all children in poverty are white; not all BAME children are disadvantaged.

All these things are true. Blunt approaches to trying to rectify disadvantage are just that: blunt approaches in a nuanced situation.

But the overwhelming fact remains: a massive series of cuts which have made life so, so much harder for all disadvantaged children.

Across many areas: in education, in public services, in communities, benefit caps, a social housing project that hasn't happened ...

That is what we need to focus on, not viciously arguing about who has a minisculey larger scrap.

But there are definitely fewer opportunities now for white working class men to advance
Is that because women and BAME men are in those jobs? Is it because white middle class men are in those jobs? Or is it because those jobs no longer exist and the world has changed?

The answer to those questions affects societies response. For example, if its 2, then activities to increase mobility for all working class people would work best. If 3 then there needs to be thought about what opportunities there are for men. It's only if 1 that interventions targeted at white men would be appropriate. Personally I see no evidence 1 is the case. There don't seem to be hordes of black union leaders around.

Seriously. Where are the structural barriers to white working class men working their way up via a trade union or standing for election etc?

But there are definitely fewer opportunities now for white working class men to advance. Where is the next Denis Skinner for example? Or people who worked their way up via Trade Union activities?

Nobody could explain why it was ok to have scholarships solely for black boys but not for white boys.....yes why is that?

It's because there are structural barriers to black children so in effect white boys get a disproportionate amount of existing scholarships. Providing scholarships for black boys goes some way to redress this.

Same for scholarships for girls into STEM for example.

Personally I think its very strange when people get up in arms about "white people/men should have this cos equality!" Just shows they haven't recognised that some sectors of society are structurally disadvantaged.