To wonder why working class white boys do worse than any other ethnic group, and how we can change this?

[Carla786]

A lot of stuff I've read recently has argued the way school is set up disadvantages boys compared to girls. But this doesn't explain why white working class boys would perform worse than wc boys of other ethnicities.
Asian wc boys are more likely to have present fathers,,but black wc boys less likely than white boys (I think). So absent fathers I'm sure are part of the problem, but then maybe also black boys then have a protective factor that still boosts performance which white boys don't have? What could this be?

And how can white wc boys be helped? The question also remains why white wc girls are apparently less affected too : maybe I suppose tying in to school methods being more suited to the average girl?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/03/24/the-betrayal-of-white-working-class-boys/

I agree with this.

My parents were immigrants. My father came to the U.K. and went to university here so I wasn’t the first in my family to go to university.

I value education as does my husband and we’re born here, it’s drummed into our children to make the most of what is on offer and to try your best. My youngest has done her 11 plus exam last year and passed and will go onto a grammar school. She did one year of tuition. Her peers (white background) some didn’t pass because the parents wanted them to have a break from studying over the summer, and they missed out by 1 or 2 marks. And some of them studied for 2 years. We continued to study (1-2 hours a day) during the summer and passed over the threshold. It’s the attitude to learning that is often different.

I think when they’re little and have the ability, you push them to succeed. You can’t leave it up to your children to decide, faff around and then leave with mediocre results. I am not saying this is the way for everyone as everyone is different but it’s the thought process that a lot of people from ethnic backgrounds have. It’s also one of the reasons I wasn’t allowed to have a boyfriend at school as it would take the focus away from my studies.

People should do what they think is best for their kids, but the above is an insight to how most people like me think.

A slight correction to your title OP, Gypsy and Roma are actually the ethnic group with the worst educational outcomes, followed by Irish travellers, both by quite some considerable margin. Traveller girls do marginally better than boys, but not by much.

Source: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/gcse-results-attainment-8-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/#by-ethnicity

I saw that video, it was sad, they were basically pleasant, friendly young men who weren't really into what the rally was about but it will give them a sense of belonging and there is a fair chance that will lead to them getting more deeply involved.

The German system of gymnasiums and technical schools seems to work far better than ours and they have much lower rate of youth unemployment.

The technical schools are extremely effective at teaching trades, skills and offering apprenticeships from 15 yrs onward - whereby students are working part time at school a part time on the job.

I challenge you to find anyone in this thread who has said "white kids are lazy and naughty and all ethnic kids are studious hard workers" or anything close to that.

My husband left school at 16 with no GCSEs, he now has a degree. He joined the army and did every qualification offered to him. If a child gets to 16 and has a functional skills style qualification and some trade knowledge, why that would prevent them from going on to study after this point?

That's not what I said. I didn't mention the army. I was talking about the German system and how much flexibility is built in, however, someone has answered that.

I don't think it's the actual cultural capital per se that leads to better outcomes. The children who have cultural capital reserves from an early age are generally speaking from engaged, financially solvent, stable families who value these activities. This cultural capital is important further down the line when in the world of work. Many BAME children are high achievers but are lacking this cultural capital (although they certainly have their own forms of cultural capital), which is why there are measures to level up.

Traveller communities have a different cultural approach to education frequently ending school attendance at 14. This is the report on which the Spiked article is based:

https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/newsroom/white-working-class-boys-still-at-the-bottom-of-the-class-says-race-report-chief

Ah because this thread is the only place this topic has ever been discussed ….

0-3 years is so formative, education has already started and there will already be stark differences between parenting

I never said you mentioned the army. I was using it as an example that learning doesn't have to stop at a certain age. If a child were put into a stream that didn't suit them after a year there is nothing to stop them from going on to complete further education.

Some kids disengage from an academic curriculum.early and struggle to catch up
A more technical curriculum would be better for some kids.

I know. And this is accepted. However it seems that when white working class families also have a different cultural approach to education, this is a problem that must be 'fixed'.

Speaking from personal experience (as a white WC woman who over achieved with a brother who underachieved), I think the main reason is that education is not seen as important amongst most white WC males, they’ve heard their whole lives how their fathers, uncles, grandfathers etc had no qualifications, but had good jobs and supported families.

The main career option for them is usually to go into the trades (which is a lot less appealing for girls) where they can earn good money and can start off as labourers (not needing any qualifications). This is very common with the boys I went to school with and what almost all the men in my family have done.

There’s also the difference between the way boys and girls are raised, I was raised to be agreeable, compliant, conscientious, mature, independent, boys are typical infantilised and have excuses made for them, so they behave more poorly and are less conscientious and mature.

I don’t believe it is anything to do with schools apparently being more suited to girls, it’s that behavioural standards are much lower for boys, they have less respect for authority and do not value education because they have other career options that earn well which girls don’t have or are not appealing.

Bring back Borstal Training. They need to learn discipline and a trade.

I agree there are so many factors at play as already discussed.

Ive often wondered if puberty and slower brain maturation could play a part?

I think testosterone hits boys harder and in a very different way than oestrogen does for girls. I think testosterone makes boys more competitive but because of the later maturity of the prefrontal lobe, this increase in competitive, masculine behaviour is not tempered with executive function. Delayed gratification for educational needs gets left behind. They have other emotions driving them - perhaps self interest and it’s consequent behaviour is most dominant?

Oestrogen on the other hand I think makes girls more socially compliment, plus I think the science says their brain matures 2yrs ahead of boys. I think this would explain the better statistics for white working class girls over the white WC boys.

So how come it’s only white and working class boys and not higher income or Asian and other ethnicities. I think this is when the other factors come into play and have more influence.

Boys from stable families with high parental involvement and high expectations, in areas with good funding and high employment are mostly able to offset some of these negative effects of puberty.

I’ve heard it said boys would benefit if GCSEs and A levels could be taken 2 years later.

I haven’t mentioned Porn use and the Andrew Tate effect, because I believe this trend was already noticed before those things became so prevalent. But thats another detrimental influence at play.

I don’t know if I’ve managed to explain myself well- as a woman I can only guess at what puberty feels like for boys.

The deliberate early cessation of education and knowledge in some communities really does impact the outcomes for young people, especially young girls.

I hope that as society leans more heavily into technology and devices, young people will be exposed to learning in other ways. Perhaps screen time and devices for very young children will have a positive impact with those from low aspirational backgrounds.

It has always been that white working class boys often can't be bothered with education and have little aspiration. Growing up in a very working class area my brother got ridiculed by most of the other boys and labelled as 'the professor' for daring to work hard at school and this was in the 50s and 60s. For other ethnic groups the chance of a good education was jumped on a lot of the time. I would think working class black boys have also become less interested in education following the lead of their white counterparts. The interest in getting a good education seems to fade as the availability increases. You see children in poor countries walking miles to get to school and desperate to learn.

I can't speak for other ethnicities, but as an Indian I can tell you that most Indian parents will aspire to send their kids to grammar school because we're brought up in a system that puts a lot of emphasis on education and the school/university you go to.

India has some very prestigious universities and getting into them is the ultimate 'my child has made it' pride for Indian parents. They bring the same attitude when they come to the UK and see grammar schools as a 'must have' for their child. This can sometimes lead to lot of stress if their child is not naturally able and that's when the tutoring cycle starts!
If I meet a new Indian acquaintance and tell them my child is in secondary school, they will immediately list out nearby grammar schools as a way of asking which one my child for into. Some of them could never comprehend sending their child to the local comprehensive! It's either grammar or private.

All this is to say that there's a lot of push from home for these Indian kids to do well. Which is why you see a higher percentage of Indian children doing better than working class white boys.

I wish I knew how to make this more balanced...

Oh yes this is very common

Some (obviously generalised) traditional white working class values:

The elevation of manual work over mental work, so a hod carrier who can heft a huge number of bricks onto his shoulder is working harder, and is thus more respected, than the "pen-pusher" boss in the office, whose arm presumably barely has the strength to pick up a pen.

The non-acceptance of gate-keeping measures like Maths GCSE. I have not used manual long division, much less solved a quadratic equation, since I left school, despite me now working in IT. The middle classes accept that Maths GCSE is a proxy for an IQ test and is a door-opener. Lower class people are correct in their assessment that the stuff taught in Maths is nearly all useless and irrelevant to work, and they don't see or don't accept the gate-keeping aspect.

The elevation of the community over the individual. If you are starting to do well and are from a working class background, you are 'getting above yourself'. Someone who stays in the area and joins in the local culture is valued above someone who leaves for individualistic reasons.
Economic responses to situations are often communal, e.g. an older relative getting a job for a school leaver in the place they work, or families lending each other money and pooling resources. When you have an extended family and community, you have an economic cushion and you don't give it up lightly.

Most people outside of white English culture have very little idea of how much the class division pervades everything. It is everywhere, but mostly invisible to outsiders, and the effects are all-pervasive.
Take the idea of 'respecting authority'. A white working class boy will often accept a working class authority figure, but not a middle class one. And the class origin of a person is 100% obvious as soon as they speak or eat.

On the subject of white working class 'entitlement', these boys have grandfathers who chant "two world wars and one world cup", and parents who remember their grandfathers waxing lyrical about how Britain ruled the world. The legacy of being poor in a post-colonial country runs very deep.

It's down to parenting. Shitty parenting.

Yes. Same here.

Mention having your child do 30 minutes of homework a day and some act like you’re torturing them as if 30 minutes is a long time.

My two oldest do have SEN and even if they didn’t, they would still be doing 30 minutes of homework a day. We would still be taking them to the cultural things that some on here deem ‘snobby’, investing in their interests, etc. I find free and low-cost options and create things myself to help them. Same with the regular dialogue with the teacher and what is needed, how we can support our children. Why wait until they’re older where it’s much harder and likely more resistance than making it the standard?

Growing up, we were expected to have goals, expected to have good grades because there was little excuse not to and when we weren’t it was a discussion between us and the teacher on what could be done, advice, etc because my parents as do I see teachers as colleagues not adversaries, both working towards the same goal.

It was instilled in us the importance of not just education, but learning, being curious, asking questions, critical thinking, how to research, etc. After awhile, it simply became second nature. If some families don’t value such things, why would their kids think to?

Some posters may see it as ‘unnecessary pressure’ but then would likely be the ones complaining and saying parents should have started sooner if their children were far behind as young children or be moaning on here about their own children not doing xyz in the later parts of primary and into secondary.

One of my friends is a teacher, and she says that she can generally tell which children are going to succeed, and which are going to fail, and it has nothing to do with were they breastfed, or do they come from a wealthy home, or any other factors - other than those kids who have invested parents, including parent/s who read to them at night when they are young, have the best outcomes. Of course, this is anecdotal only, but I can see the logic in it.