To think the issue of poor white boys failing at school is overlooked?

[hibbledibble]

They have the worst outcome of any group.

I highly recommend watching H is for Harry, documentary film which is available currently on Netflix, and highlights this issue.

It's about a boy with SEN, including illiteracy, and his experience in a mainstream school over two years.

It brought tears to my eyes. It was great to see how much progress he made in small group teaching, but sad that his difficulties in class meant him eventually being excluded from the school, and there was not much information given as to what happened to him following this.

It's heartbreaking that this boy could have done really well with ongoing intense intervention, but that the barrier to this is funding. It seemed at the end that the school gave up on him, as he just spent time in the nursery.

I would be curious to hear others views.

Raising boys achievement was an "initiative" when I was teaching in the UK 16 or 17 years ago. Its not a new or an underreported problem whatsoever.

One problem is that the government medles so much in setting priorities in English schools (I can't speak for the rest of the UK although I imagine that's similar) and priority "initiatives" change with the wind and are never top priority long enough to carry any given cohort through school. Something new is slapped on top as a priority every few months and although previous priorities are rarely officially shelved priorities are often incompatible and the newest thing is what senior management want results (or rather something to show evidence gathering and number crunching) on.

As others say its a hard one to address because its largely about cultural attitudes coming from home, community and peers. Working hard isn't cool, clowning around and being a bit if a lad us. Boys who try hard and achieve mediocre results are seen as losers - success is admired if it looks effortless but its most important to look as though you're not trying, even if you fail.

At the school I taught at there was a big problem (for the school) with boys who had a dad or an uncle who they thought they'd have a job with after school regardless of whether they passed any exams or indeed were literate and numerate. Often their families also expected them to go into a family business of some kind, but that didn't always work out obviously. The girls weren't automatically expecting the same thing as the jobs were often manual and expectations sexist, but educationally in girls' favour as they needed to pass some GCSEs without assured jobs waiting.

I still don't understand the focus on better educating these lads when there are more realistic short term strategies. For example, huge problem of HGV driver shortage with a seriously aging workforce (average driver 55yo)

Even HGV driving requires a basic level of literacy and numeracy.

If children want to do these jobs, then fine, but they should have a level of educational attainment that allows them choice.

And this is another massive issue. That unmotivated, poorly educated white boys jobs are paying this much

Why is this a problem?

@EightWheelGirl

Certainly in the US, Asian privilege is now a reality as Asian males have better financial and health outcomes than white males. I've only seen one discussion on it and the lefty woman debating the other got really pissy and told her to stop using the term 'Asian privilege'.

I rest my case! Some people, (as you say lefties, mostly far-left,) gasp in horror if you DARE suggest other ethnic groups may have as many privileges in life as white people, and in some cases, many more.

Like you, I know quite a number of wealthy and privileged Asian people, and black people too.

I know some wealthy and privileged white people too, but I am pig sick of this nonsense that some people come out with, that only white people can be privileged.

I'm so trying not to debate this on Christmas Day!!
The majority of children in the inner London borough in which I work do well because their parents are immigrants who place HUGE emphasis on education. That means, locally, tuition. Those kids are tutored to death to do well. This does not include certain (often majority) groups whose parents speak no English and in no way prioritise learning.There are very few white British families where I work and those there are are not often concerned with educational attainment.

White privilege doesn’t mean you’re generally ‘privileged’. All it means is that there’s a whole extra barrel of shit (racism) that you don’t have to deal with.

For example, it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, if you’re black you are more likely to be stopped by the police. If you’re looking at teenaged boys, a black teenager is more likely to be arrested than a white teenager for exactly the same behaviour and then more likely to be charged because of it.

[quote LittleRoundRobin]@EightWheelGirl

Certainly in the US, Asian privilege is now a reality as Asian males have better financial and health outcomes than white males. I've only seen one discussion on it and the lefty woman debating the other got really pissy and told her to stop using the term 'Asian privilege'.

I rest my case! Some people, (as you say lefties, mostly far-left,) gasp in horror if you DARE suggest other ethnic groups may have as many privileges in life as white people, and in some cases, many more.

Like you, I know quite a number of wealthy and privileged Asian people, and black people too.

I know some wealthy and privileged white people too, but I am pig sick of this nonsense that some people come out with, that only white people can be privileged.[/quote]
I think much of this is class privilege more so than race privilege.

Yabu to think this is not already a focus. It is. But schools are battling the culture at home and in their shitty communities which tells these boys school is pointless. Grades are pointless. Teachers are to be ignored. Poor behaviour is acceptable. They did nothing at school and they're ok. They're not. They're often living in poverty with ongoing safeguarding issues but they have no reference as to what is normal.

This 👆. Nearly every white working class teenage boy I speak to will tell me their grades don’t matter because they are just going to work with their dad when they grow up. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve asked “well what does your dad do?” And they reply “dunno. But he said he will get me a job with him when I leave school”.
This is the culture we are battling. Schools can only do and encourage so much, the change really really needs to come from home

Even HGV driving requires a basic level of literacy and numeracy.

If children want to do these jobs, then fine, but they should have a level of educational attainment that allows them choice.

It'd be great if they did have this level of educational attainment, but it'll never happen for anywhere close to 100% so I think it's good to consider the other options.

I've worked in project/bid management and more recently construction logistics as a driver and soon a trainee site manager. As a driver I just need to be able to write my name and date on the defect book, tick or cross the various boxes (tyres checked, lights checked, etc), and be able to sign my name on delivery paperwork. The vast majority of people could be taught it.

@WhatScratch

White privilege doesn’t mean you’re generally ‘privileged’. All it means is that there’s a whole extra barrel of shit (racism) that you don’t have to deal with.

For example, it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, if you’re black you are more likely to be stopped by the police. If you’re looking at teenaged boys, a black teenager is more likely to be arrested than a white teenager for exactly the same behaviour and then more likely to be charged because of it.

Oh save us from an earnest, simplistic explanation of critical race theory please! I knew the thread would go now this road as soon as I saw the title. CRT gained popularity in American west coast universities back in the 70s/80s. It’s gained huge traction granted and is currently the theory de jour, oft parroted on MN but it an academic theory that you can choose to believe or not, like any other, it is NOT fact and actually has its roots in Marxism. White working class boys lack of attainment is the discussion here even if it is so often ignored because it’s a pesky distraction and opposing argument when discussing the ever more mainstream tenets of CRT.

Yes. And so, so many blokes where I live were able to get jobs with good money ,( especially shift allowance) with crap gcses. To earn that much money myself took 3 v good a levels, a degree, a pgcse and 20 years' experience.

As pp have said, so many boys say they don't need any qualifications cos they'll get a good job anyway. Or 'apprenticeship ' but with no idea of what they actually want to do.

So many of you are conflating class and race. White people do have white privilege because largely they do not experience racism except in very limited circumstances ie a Jewish person who identifies as white can experience racism. . Largely white privilege can be simply as the absence of racism both within the community and also through the ongoing effects of past racism. Ie. Someone whose ancestors were slaves are much less likely to have the same inheritance potential as those who were slave owners.

Now a Asian shop owner is in a managerial position. He is middle class. That means from a class point of view he has more privilege. But he will experience racism. So he may have more money in his pocket than a white working class male but that male still has white privilege.

Considering intersectionality is important when you are comparing groups.

As I’ve said previously white working class boys and girls stats are pulled down due to the inclusion of GRT students.

@WhatScratch

White privilege doesn’t mean you’re generally ‘privileged’. All it means is that there’s a whole extra barrel of shit (racism) that you don’t have to deal with.

For example, it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, if you’re black you are more likely to be stopped by the police. If you’re looking at teenaged boys, a black teenager is more likely to be arrested than a white teenager for exactly the same behaviour and then more likely to be charged because of it.

Thank you. That so many struggle to grasp this is so frustrating

But 'white privilege' is pretty much useless to the conversation then if we're going to say the homeless guy who sleeps in a bin has white privilege over Barack Obama. Certainly when it has the effect of making a lot of people assume that the homeless guy needs less help due to having some form of privilege.

Parental attitudes to education are a huge factor in educational achievement.

One of the reasons that Sure Start was so effective was that it recognised that by the time children started school there was already an achievement gap between those children whose parents had the knowledge and will to encourage their children’s learning and those children whose parents lacked the confidence, education or will to do so. The stats showed that those children didn’t catch up over the course of their school lives. Help was targeted at those parents and their children.

If you’re going to target generational underachievement you have to try to engage the parents with school and learning in general from the time the child is very little. Encourage them to read to their DC, help them to pick up basic maths and literacy if it’s something they struggle with - things like dyslexia and ADHD weren’t picked up on as much as they are now. Offering parenting courses and helping to identify behavioural or learning problems as early as possible means that there’s more chance of them being managed successfully. Children who can’t keep up with the pace of learning are more likely to become bored and disruptive in class. By the time the children are teenagers it’s a lot harder to turn things around.

This isn’t theoretical. We had the programmes and the systems all set up and working. The Conservatives cut funding on ideological grounds.

@EightWheelGirl

But 'white privilege' is pretty much useless to the conversation then if we're going to say the homeless guy who sleeps in a bin has white privilege over Barack Obama. Certainly when it has the effect of making a lot of people assume that the homeless guy needs less help due to having some form of privilege.

Except thats not the conversation and the cause of the man sleeping in the bin isn’t his race. No one thinks the ex president of the USA needs more help than a homeless man. However if you had a Black homeless man and a white homeless man then both would likely face abuse due to being homeless but the Black man may also face racial abuse on top of that. If you are going to compare then compare like for like.

I'm not a big fan of class analysis in general tbh. I saw an analogy of it on here ages ago which I thought was pretty accurate.

Group A is comprised of Jeff Bezos and nine homeless men. Group B is comprised of ten female execs who each earn £100k p/a. Class analysis would say that Group A is more privileged as a group due to a higher net income, despite the fact that 90% of them sleep in a bin.

I think the above analogy is possibly a good one for our society where men are assumed to have a lot of privilege as a group due to a small number of them doing exceptionally well. Perfect example being the 'all CEOs are male' thing we always read - in fact, saw it on a thread on here today.

The majority of CEOs being men is not the same as the majority of men being CEOs.

So this thread is a great show of how these debates, and bad use of data is used by the right wing in their culture war. I'm going to have to go through a few of the statements made and demonstrate why they are so incorrect.

First of all. It isn't working class white males that underperform, its white males on free school meals.

Second they aren't the worst performing group. That would be the children from both traveller communites.

Its also white males on FSM outside of London, as there is no real performance difference between students on FSM of different ethnicities inside London, they do better than those outside the capital.

This however does make a difference to performance statistics over all, for example when comparing outcomes. Of the black population of the UK ( about 1.8 million) something like 58% of those live in London, so if London children on FSM have better outcomes, this will be have an impact on the over all statistics of white vs black children on FSM.

Added to that black children are more likely to be on FSM than white, only 15% of white children are on FSM, where as its closer to 50% of black children.

However it should be noted that the government data also divides black children up into West Indian and Other, in which there is a big divide. Boys from West Indian backgrounds, perform at very similar rate to White boys on FSM.

Oh, also studies also find that whilst other minorities do better at school, they are more likely to be unemployed.

The government like using the term "working class" because it makes people think their kids aren't getting a fair go.

They like this cause it stokes their culture war, there has been no exclusion of white boys on FSM from any opporunities and kids from other ethnic backgrounds are not targeted at their expense.

Yet you lap it up.

Second, there definately is no use of funding or opp

"But 'white privilege' is pretty much useless to the conversation then if we're going to say the homeless guy who sleeps in a bin has white privilege over Barack Obama. Certainly when it has the effect of making a lot of people assume that the homeless guy needs less help due to having some form of privilege."

Then these people don't understand what the term means.

"100 million per cent agree, but it's a taboo subject, as we are not allowed to say white people are disadvantaged in any way. White, working class males (and lower-working-class males,) are the most fucked-over demographic these days. Not only boys, but men also. Up to around 60 years old anyway."

Its not at all taboo, and saying this is part of the culture war stoking.

How are white working class males ( again you have misused this term) the most "fucked over" got any examples?

"People from ethnic minorities get a lot more support."

In what way? Give examples! Bet you can't.

’But 'white privilege' is pretty much useless to the conversation then if we're going to say the homeless guy who sleeps in a bin has white privilege over Barack Obama’

White privilege doesn’t mean that you aren’t in a shitty situation; just that you’d have an extra load of shit to deal with if you weren’t white. So a white homeless man for example has a high risk of being assaulted, is at risk of health problems and is obviously economically deprived. It’s shit. Change his skin colour and he has all of those existing problems plus racism - he’s more likely to be perceived as a threat regardless of behaviour, even more likely to be assaulted etc.

@Twaddle1982

The reason its pulled down is because GRT boys are included in white boy statistics. Without them included stats rise massively. White working class girls stats are affected in a similar way. So its not necessarily about them being white its the fact they are working class. Working class boys of other races often do better because initiatives are aimed at them. While those initiatives don’t necessarily mitigate all working class disadvantages they a, overlap in places and b, if you give a working class child a chance they thrive. Almost always.

The main things that need to be addressed is GRT education opportunities and working class opportunities. Thats what SureStart thrived at. Early identification of potential SEN, early intervention, early socialisation.

So in short if you really care about opportunities for white working class boys you need to support a political party that values them. On no occasion in history has that political party been the Conservatives.

The reason its pulled down is because GRT boys are included in white boy statistics. Without them included stats rise massively.

You got a link for this? Would be interested to see these stats.

To be an HGV driver requires sufficient literacy to pass a driving theory test, pass the advanced HGV driving theory test, read and follow delivery instructions for multiple locations, read, understand and be able to run safety checks on the vehicle.

It also requires the ability to turn up to work on time, communicate with your colleagues, speak to customers/clients in an appropriate way, problem solve, make decisions, follow rules.

The boy in the programme cited was illiterate. He would not be able to become an HGV driver without learning to read a lot better. But he also would likely struggle with all of those soft skills as well.

There is rightly a focus on poor white boys' literacy levels but that alone won't fix things. If their home environment/culture doesn't encourage/develop their soft skills - or possibly is outright hostile to those skills - it's very difficult for them to compete in the jobs market.

Poor white girls tend to develop more of those soft skills. There are lots of poor white girls helping taking care of siblings, family members, putting the tea on, chatting with gran etc - while boys are much less likely to be given similar chores or be as involved in the "chatting" of a family.
Their interactions with male friends involve gaming, physical activities etc - again, less likely to have social skills of girls from the same background.

Poor white women have higher employment levels than men so they also much more likely see their fathers/uncles/older brothers being unemployed while female relatives are more likely to work part or full time. Following dad into a trade is less likely than a girl following her mum into retail work/care work etc.

Work for people with no qualifications in some areas is much more plentiful in "female jobs" like retail and care work than very physical jobs that men have an advantage in. So the work that is available to them is "women's work". Why bother to learn anything at school if you don't see a path ahead?

I think there is often a reluctance of the fathers to push their sons to do better at school in part because this would essentially acknowledge that they themselves could have done better/earned more/been happier if they were better educated. That's a hard blow for their pride.

Immigrant parents are much more comfortable with the idea that their lives would have been better with better education - hence they are much more comfortable to push their kids.

this boy could have done really well with ongoing intense intervention

Most children could do really well at school with the right kind of help. The resources aren't available.

It does make me laugh that the flagship report into this, by the government, which is highly politicised, reccomends "family hubs" to be used to support families who's children are on FSM in order to improve outcomes.

We used to have those, what were they called? What happened to them?