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.

@RoyalFamilyFan surely people's expeirence of their own child's school would influence them furhter.

However, I think there might be a point there.

History does matter, and it influences community culture, and so does geography ( and this is noted by the study).

The geographic areas where our white boys living in relative poverty are not achieving at schools have been ones where historically, relatively well paid male jobs in the local industry did not need a high level of education.

The school gate closed and the gate to the pit, shipyard, steelworks, brickworks etc opened, and you were trained on the job.

Being good in school wasn't needed and it didn't matter. Cultures take longer to change than economics.

And some teachers in the past did clearly look down on the poor white working-class communities they taught in. I still remember an incident at school when I was 7 years old that taught me that.
Basically, middle-class people have to recognise the issues and what has led to where we are at. Instead of just blaming poor people. There is a lot of blaming poor people for their poverty from people who don't really understand poor communities. And it is not as simple as working class, it is the poorest communities within that.

"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"

Ah so the children alone got the school through.

And OFSTED just look at paperwork, they never take a survey from parents, or watch lessons, or look at books. The head also surprisingly never noticed the poor skills of the staff.

As I said, you can defend this all you like, I don't believe you.

It also sounds like a typical " Oh the local school was so awful that we just had to go private" tale.

" There is a lot of blaming poor people for their poverty from people who don't really understand poor communities"

Nearly always done by those who then shout: " Working class white boys" when any issue regarding race and inequality are raised.

Its part of their culture war.

Okay you know better John.
This has always been my experience. If you are poor everyone else tells you they better understand your situation than you do. IME most middle-class people including teachers dont.

And yes I am not stupid. I understand the attempt to use this to fuel racism and engage in a culture war.
If it works it is because people like you don't listen to what the issues actually are.

"If it works it is because people like you don't listen to what the issues actually are."

The issue are not that people plaid dress up at primary school 40 years ago rather than learning or some snotty teacher attitudes back then.

You want the issues?

1.Lack of local jobs and opportunites ( see that link to geography again). Which leads to lacking aspiration, or a feeling of hopelessness. But this links to deindustrialisation and the introduction of neoliberal policies in the 1980s.

2,. The assoicated costs of poverty, poor housing, ill health, poor nutrition and more combine to stunt education. Plus the impact of chaotic lives that often acompany parents who are living in relative poverty. All of which is made worse by cuts to benefits.

1. Parents own poor education. Leads to lack of involvement and a lack of understanding of how to help, or where to find resources that can help.

1. Poor infrastructure in the area, leading to geographic immobility or high costs ( real or percieved) associated with higher and further education.

The intersectionality of all of the above and many more are at play here.

It certainly isn't anything to do with race, or other ethnicities being given opportunities at the expense of white children.

I agree it is nothing to do with race.
I think you only partly get it. Yes all those are issues but it is more. You are missing the cultural aspect.
So no not everyone or even most families in poverty live chaotic lifestyles. But they are dealing with pressing day to day issues of how to feed their kids or heat their house.
Further education is also about the costs versus benefits. Remember these kids are unlikely to be going to Oxbridge. They would be going to a university that used to be a poly and the truth is the degree does have less value and less impact on peoples lives. There are plenty of poorer young adults with a degree working in shops or call centres, but now with debt from a degree. That is because simply having a degree is rarely enough.
There are jobs nearly everywhere but most are low paid and zero hours so little or no progression. They are jobs, not careers.
Loads of other stuff, but I need to go to bed. But it is deeper and more complex than your post says.

They're at a disadvantage from the off without family support.

They may have very good family support. It is without the right type of family support for education.

"You are missing the cultural aspect."

I discussed this above. Also discucssed the percieved cost of FE/HE, also local jobs and opportunities.

"But it is deeper and more complex than your post says."

Which of course is why I usedd the sentence:

"The intersectionality of all of the above and many more are at play here."

Of course, I never said my post was the definitive, you're just defensive now because you were dying to paint me as someone who didn't get it, when I most surely do.

I think a few years back some wealthy entrepreneur tried to find educational initiatives aimed exclusively at this group and it was pulled due to concerns around inclusion, or lack thereof.

From what I have experienced with ds at school it is the kids who are just average that get neglected. The ones who are below average & the ones who are above average get all the attention but the ones who are plain average get left to manage on their own, they don't get help when they need it & they don't get pushed to better themselves. I know a lot of it is down to money & the fact in reality only the below & above average affect Ofsted results but it isn't fair, same for behaviour, a badly behaved child behaves for a week & gets treats, praise & awards or a super behaved child constantly gets awards but the ones who quietly get on with everything & don't stand out are ignored. At ds school they had awards & when you got a certain amount there was an award ceremony, pictures in the newsletter, parents were invited to the ceremony, it was the same kids all the time, kids like ds who just got on with everything, never got detentions never got any awards.

@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.

It's an interesting point.

I went to a secondary school in the 80s that was mostly white working class.

The girls were for the most part hard working and more mature, perhaps a bit dour. They did OK.

The boys mucked around, caused trouble and bullied the more studious boys. Anything other than football and (for the seniors) getting pissed was for sissies.

My DW, who is not British, had the same problem when she taught in the late 90s. Just straight up sneery bad attitude.

As someone who got the brunt of their unwelcome attention while at school I can't honestly feel much sympathy for WWC boys like that and I'm not sure treating them as a group of victims is really what they need. The ones I grew up with needed a sense of individual responsibility instead.

@Nat6999

Pretty much every lesson planned is aimed at the ‘average’ child, then those who are weaker need support and the more ‘able’ need to be pushed.

How is it overlooked? The issue of poor white boys failing at school has been known about and focused on for many years. I thought it was common knowledge.

@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 from the age of 4, girls are still encouraged to sit in nursery or sit still and behave at home. Its not about education aspiration. The boys aren't encouraged to do this in quite the same way.

Merely being able to sit still means you don't fall behind as much, as quickly even if your parents are shit. That makes a huge difference. Its a tiny thing but one which is important.

It has surprised me the extent to which this matter and its particularly apparent with current Yr2s because of the pandemic. It seems to be a skill huge numbers of kids have missed out on - including ones who probably normally wouldn't have the issue from different backgrounds. Parental support has played a huge role here. Its noticable that the girls who had been socialised from an earlier age to sit down and do colouring etc rather go play have tended to fair better than their male counterparts from this aspect alone. School does come into this to a degree - its something schools would improve on but its roots are in the home. I fear that if this single issue isn't properly picked up on, you are going to get a generation who are particularly disadvantaged.

You cannot learn if you can't sit still with out being disruptive.

@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.

I haven’t seen the reports that suggest this but if this is the case I would start by looking at how PP money is being used in these schools as it would suggest that brilliantly it is being used in a way to help the girls but maybe something needs changing to ensure the boys are helped as much with it

@Itonlytakesonetree

Underachievement of white boys has been an issue for years. This is a systemic issue, which will not be fixed any time soon and has much more deep rooted issues than apply to one child with SEN who required a different type of school.

I don't think it is much to do with schools, white working class boys leave school and earn more than their sisters and ethnic minority children.

Why bother with education when you are going to work with your dad who is a plumber or a mechanic and earns more than your teacher?

I'm not saying you're wrong but I do find this argument hard to believe. Who is taking up paces at Oxford - Cambridge and on all the boards on top jobs - white Boys/men.

So they can't be doing that badly?

Honestly nobody (in government or in most of the media) cared about outcomes for working class kids until their outcomes became worse than black kids. Basically working class kids can do worse than white kids paying for private education that's the natural order of things, but we can't have them being worse than everyone! The issue isn't that white working class boys do slightly worse than black working class boys and white working class girls do slightly better; that's leaving us fighting over the crumbs. The issue is that a section of society can pay for an education that is ultimately superior to what most people get for free and eventually leads to better networking opportunity, more powerful jobs and much better financial prospects. Those people can then afford the same for their children and become responsible for making educational policy!

Incidentally the issue isn't as cut and dry (dried?) as yes white working class boys perform the worst in school but then this is not reflected in the job market where they are not the most likely demographic to be unemployed or rejected for a job or in the lowest income bracket.

@crackofdoom

Well, you don't really get groups for poor white boys in the way you do for 'women in business' and black entrepreneurs etc. Ever seen a shortlist for white working class men?

Groups for women in business are set up by women in business. Groups for black entrepreneurs are set up by black entrepreneurs. So whose fault is it if white working class men don't set up groups to help others like themselves up the ladder?

Did you see the howls of racism when this was tried? www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2019/dec/30/private-schools-defend-refusal-of-1m-donation-to-help-poor-white-boys

It's like the common response to black lives matter movement saying set up you own movement. As soon as someone dared to say anything they were banned from football.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/22/white-lives-matter-banner-manchester-city-burnley-plane
So really it isn't s level playing field at all.

@ttcpatronisers

I'm not saying you're wrong but I do find this argument hard to believe. Who is taking up paces at Oxford - Cambridge and on all the boards on top jobs - white Boys/men.

So they can't be doing that badly?

But are they from working class backgrounds?

@Sirzy hmmm I still don't buy it, it any race of people the lower you're class the more likely you are to struggle with education - the two go hand in hand so I just don't see the validity of the argument?

@ttcpatronisers

I'm not saying you're wrong but I do find this argument hard to believe. Who is taking up paces at Oxford - Cambridge and on all the boards on top jobs - white Boys/men.

So they can't be doing that badly?

You’ve missed out the crucial bit of information - it’s POOR white boys who tend to fail at school.