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.

?More broadly the education system in the UK needs to value far more highly the vocational trades that none of us can do without. I don't think it does that and there is a shocking snobbery amongst some teachers in relation to the manual and vocational trades."

Another oft trotted out statement with no backing, followed by this:

"My children's state school teachers in an outstanding primary were actually pretty dire, had very robust political views shared too freely with the school community and weren't too hot on spelling, grammar and maths"

Ah yes those primary teachers who can't spell or do maths but are always talking about CRT?

And in more things that never happened...

I also find it hilarious that the right wing have championed austerity which has led to huge budget cuts for local authorities, councils and schools, especially in deprived communities and then stand there handwringing about the fate of the people in these communities.

Its even funnier when you realise that the cuts have fallen heaviest in traditional Labour voting areas ( now known as the red wall).

But handwring about working class white boys, and big up the culture war, while doing everything to fuck over the people they claim to be supporting, and pointing the finger and saying : "look its those ethnic kids over there, you aren't doing well cause THE LEFT want all the support to go to them".

BTW has anyone noted the significance of using "working class white boys" rather than " White boys living in relative poverty who live in coastal, rural and deinidustrialised areas" because of course that is the actual finding of the report.

65 % of all people in the UK would class themselves as working class.

Just saying.

This is another fantastic example of bad use of data.

Using Asian alone, includes East Asian, South East Asian, and South Asian and then compares them as some monolyth to the white population.

Yet many other markers (see above) seem to suggest that there are other factors at play aside from just racism.

"Yet many other markers (see above) seem to suggest that there are other factors at play aside from just racism."

I'm not sure how your data links to the point that I raised?

What point are you trying to make?

That potentially in some cases what we see as white privilege is not just bestowed purely by the colour of somebody's skin but also other cultural elements like the dynamics of the family unit.

I come from a very poor background, free school meals, although pupil premium did not exist when I was at school.

The extra help some black children get is largely organised by adults in those communities. Supplementary schools at the weekend, Chinese School on a Saturday, etc. These are not organised by the state, but by adults in that community who want to help the children. That largely does not happen in white poor communities.

The issue I see is that even when those from the very poorest backgrounds do get qualifications, they rarely make the progress their peers from more privileged backgrounds do. So it feeds into the idea that qualifications really are not worth getting.

Girls though are brought up to be better behaved and do what adults say. It is the only reason the poorest white girls do a bit better than the poorest white boys.

I see someone talked about children from first immigrant families. Many immigrants are the most resourceful of their peers. You have to have determination, be organised, and very resourceful to immigrate to a foreign country with your children. So it is no surprise that they push their children to take advantage of all the education offered to them.

@EightWheelGirl that graph seems to come from the US? The race situation there is different to the UK. There are differences between ethnicities in the UK as well, but it is different to the US.

@JohnHuffam1812 whilst I am perfectly happy for you to disagree with me, may I respectfully ask that you do not question the veracity of my lived experience with my own children.

"That potentially in some cases what we see as white privilege is not just bestowed purely by the colour of somebody's skin but also other cultural elements like the dynamics of the family unit."

The data you presented doesn't show that. It may however show that in the US there are links between household incomes and single parenthood.

Although I am aware of the point you are trying to make, fairly sure Ben Shapiro ( another who use data poorly) has been doing this for years.

Let me disabuse you of your prejudice.

The association between single parenthood and household income is linked, however once we account for levels of poverty, there are no differences between white and black communities in the rate of single parenthood.

There are differences between white and black communities because of wealth though, and much of this can be put down to the historic exculsion of black people from government run schemes which allowed families to accrue wealth. 60% of all wealth in the US is inherited.

Just for example, the cheap federal backed mortgage ( a dollar deposit or whatever) during the 1930s new deal allowed white people to buy property cheaply, but excluded blacks either because the banks wouldn't led to them ( it was still leant by the bank but guarenteed by the govt) or the new build estates had covenants on it for "caucasians only". That and many other things.

Please, please don't try to use stuff that Gish Gabbling, strawman building monobrowed muppet says.

www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

"may I respectfully ask that you do not question the veracity of my lived experience with my own children."

I can question what I like.

I don't believe you.

On what basis do you not believe me. It is entirely true.

@Lockdowninfinity respectfully, that is a load of crap.

1. Because you discussed teachers being snobby about trades. Its just not something that teachers do "oh no you'll be a plumber boy" it is however one of the tropes used to misdirect people about why we don't have better funded training for trades.

You can take a look at the tories under funding of FE for the last 10 years for that.

1. Its an oft repeated trope that teachers can't do their jobs properly but are quite happy to bang on about right on or lefty issues in front of the kids.

The fact that you used two tropes in the same post on a debate that is at the centre of a culture war used by the right wing?

Suspicious.

@Lockdowninfinity I would trade places. So would my white American male cousin.
Like lots of poor families, my extended family is a mixture of white and black relatives.

@JohnHuffam1812 MIL a former primary deputy head in a working class part of a northern City is very dismissive of and snobby about the trades and also has said many a time "well it didn't matter if teachers got it wrong at my school because none of the children were destined for the professions".

My DC were at state primary, outstanding cofe, 2000 to 2009. Both left early for the independent sector. The teachers' grammar and spelling was wince worthy and the maths worse. Notably the more recently trained or South African or Antipodean teachers were significantly better than the cohort that would have been trained in the 70s/early 80s.

History matters. I know things have changed enormously. But you have to look at parents experience of school.
At my school we spent lots of time putting on plays and dressing up. One of my friends mums complained that we were doing little learning. The Head said to her that the kids in the school would never amount to anything anyway, so just let them have fun.
Then some wonder why parents in some areas don't value education? They are basing it on their own experience.

" MIL a former primary deputy head in a working class part of a northern City is very dismissive of and snobby about the trades and also has said many a time "well it didn't matter if teachers got it wrong at my school because none of the children were destined for the professions".

Ah and she denegrated the trades in front of the children? Your anecdote doesn't quite back up your first assertion.

At my school we spent lots of time putting on plays and dressing up. One of my friends mums complained that we were doing little learning. The Head said to her that the kids in the school would never amount to anything anyway, so just let them have fun.
Then some wonder why parents in some areas don't value education? They are basing it on their own experience"

Gosh this anecdote must explain the entire problem.

@BridStar

At the end of the day it's a tough world. And for some it's harder - a shit family, a shit home and a shit school. They'll be poorly educated and never escape it. That's poverty. And even with all the money in the world, you can't fix every single family who thinks school us an enemy and anyone making an effort to get a decent job is 'forgetting where you came from, you too good for us now?'

You can get your teeth and try to overcome the hurdles, or sink. Life is just hard when you're poor. But nothing, no intervention, will make educational apathy disappear.

A thousand times this. Some young people just don't WANT to learn. The parent/s don't give a damn either. Therefore the cycle continues.

"My DC were at state primary, outstanding cofe, 2000 to 2009. Both left early for the independent sector. The teachers' grammar and spelling was wince worthy and the maths worse"

Righto, and this was never noticed by OFSTED?

as I said, anecdotal tropes are poor.

If it's all about parental attitude and lack of time etc. though then why do girls on FSM do better? Curious as I haven't read that report but I have seen this headline a lot.

@JohnHuffam1812 I did not claim that it explained the entire problem. You are being incredibly dismissive.
I know there is lots done now for kids like me. But in some schools, things did use to be very different. I went to a secondary school that was very rough with teachers that did actually care about us and tried to help us all. But the junior school was extremely poor and as I said had written off most of the kids already. So the secondary school had an enormous mountain to climb to get everyone to where they should be. This was in the 70s and early '80s, and I know things have changed, but it affects parents views.
In my family I am committed to education, my brother and SIL think school is pretty much a waste of time. Although they support them loads with their hobbies, so they are not lazy parents at all, they just see school as something kids have to go to. They wanted them to be literate and numerate, but they see the rest as a waste of time.
My issue is that some middle-class people see people like my brother and SIL as just stupid for their views when in reality it comes from their experiences at school.
There is of course a difference between the small number of very chaotic families who abuse drink, alcohol, etc. They are never going to actively support their children's education. And yes I have cousins like this. For them taking care of their kids to a basic standard is enough of a challenge.
But the kids of poor parents say on fsm, who are able to support and care for their kids, are the ones whose attitudes you need to change.

@dayslikethese1

If it's all about parental attitude and lack of time etc. though then why do girls on FSM do better? Curious as I haven't read that report but I have seen this headline a lot.

Because girls are socialised to behave and do what those in authority say. Boys get the boys will be boys attitude which works against working-class boys.

@JohnHuffam1812 I didn't say MIL said it in front of the children.

And no Ofsted didn't notice. The school was very good at delivering paperwork and data and always in the Borough's top 5 due to cohort.

It's very sad to see the extent of your dismissiveness and rather unpleasant. Yours is not the only valid opinion and you appear to be something of a bully so I am out.