To think this information is missing from the news about white working class children in schools?

[Machinemasoluem]

That the definition of working class is FSM eligibility..

FSM is not a good definition of working class. At all.
The eligibility is earning less than 7.4k a year so barely anyone and its hardly working and will include children busy caring for disabled parents who don’t have time for homework, children who’s parents have alcohol or even drug problems. Etc

Absolutely no judgement from me my child gets FSM (I was only 16 when I had him and he was eligible when he started school but once you get them it lasts until the end of primary school) but it seems obvious that children from homes with issues that prevent them earning more than 7.4k will more likely struggle at school.

In September every child whose parents receive universal credit will be eligible for FSM so millions more children and from more ordinary working families. Even some middle class families receive universal credit so FSM still won’t be a good definition of working class.

I think the statistics around this will definitely be watered down when this happens. In the meantime why is it acceptable for people to act like white people are terrible parents unless they have the money for a tutor and all non white parents are superior at instilling discipline, respect and the importance of hard work? There are areas in London with obvious issues and it would be considered really racist to blame parenting.

The stats also look at ABC1 vs C2DE which is much more representative of working class and the attitude towards qualifications is striking. White middle class and all non white families think they are important. Only about 35% of white working class (which will include a lot of people who are employed and not on FSM) think qualifications are important.

This made me laugh

They address this in the report (page 20 from memory). They acknowledge that FSM is not an ideal proxy for ‘working class’ but it’s the best they had. Other, potentially better, indicators such as parents occupation or parents education level are not recorded by the DoE so could not be used.

What became of them and their children? Was it worth it?

Well, the enquiry was set the mission to determine educational outcomes among white working class children. The researchers don’t get to change the terms or title of the enquiry.

Unfortunately it’s virtually impossible to define who working class children are, as class is not recorded anywhere. Hence why they used FSM as a proxy, as the DoE keeps good stats on FSM status.

This article is interesting and does not actually mention FSM, addresses the difficult categorisation of ‘working class’ , whilst also offering an informed insight into some of today’s problems faced by young people.

The title is intentionally alarmist, but as opposed to what @Machinemasoluem has stated, people do read beyond the headlines.

John Townsley
Poor white children aren’t victims of the state, but of bad parenting
There is no conspiracy by the educational establishment. Their plight is inflicted by their own families
There are alarming levels of underperformance among white British pupils
Credit: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

John Townsley
29 June 2026 12:06pm BST
When it comes to the British education system, one demographic group has dominated the national conversation in recent years.
A new inquiry, endorsed by the eduction secretary Bridget Phillipson, has found that “white working-class children” are being failed by the school system. Amongst its recommendations are: more “white working-class” teachers at schools; free transport for under-21s in “white working-class areas”; and for high performing schools to take in more “white working-class” children.
Recent analysis by University College London (UCL) also revealed that 40 per cent of what they refer to as “white working-class pupils” miss a day of education each fortnight. One in 20 is missing at least half of their schooling. They are more than twice as likely as the average pupil to be severely absent from school. And the report finds this problem is especially acute in London.
Advertisement

Prof Lindsey Macmillan of UCL drew the conclusion that “this isn’t a short-term issue” and the impact of such absenteeism will have “a real scarring effect on future life chances”.
These inquires are important. But they also act as a painful reminder of all the time and money we have wasted over the past 20 years.
The actual use of the term “white working class” is itself a point of contention. In my view, its incorrect use on such a grand scale is at the centre of why we struggle so much as a country to tackle, head on, the dreadful problems we are now facing with this key section of our society.
The term “working class” ought to describe people who rely primarily on hourly wages, often in jobs that require physical or routine labour. But what is being referred to in this report does not fit with that profile. Nor does it match my own experience in education over the last 40 years.
The group in question should in fact be referred to with a less pithier but more accurate term: “white multi-generational, economically inactive”.
Because at the heart of their children’s disengagement from and underperformance in school is the example set by parents who place no value whatsoever on education, the importance of work, or on all that is to be gained within a household where routine, rigour and the need for sleep and a good diet form the corpus of family life.
Advertisement

We know this from painful, personal experience and because, overall, families from the white ethnic group are among the most likely to receive state support.
White British families receive government expenditure at a higher rate than any other group: 54 per cent of white British families receive some form of state support (compared with 42 per cent of Asian families and 51 per cent of black families). The money given to white British families accounts for more than three quarters of the ever-expanding Universal Credit budget.
The problems faced by white pupils from low-socio-economic backgrounds is already glaringly clear
Credit: Matt Cardy
The markedly poor attendance of white pupils from poorer backgrounds at school is also sometimes considered to be relatively new. It is not.
In written evidence provided by the Department for Education in 2012, the problems faced by white pupils from low-socio-economic backgrounds were already glaringly clear.
Alarming levels of underperformance were evident at all stages of education, with white boys from poorer backgrounds, in particular, conspicuously underachieving.
Advertisement
As an example, in 2012, 26.1 per cent of white disadvantaged pupils achieved their expected GCSE results. The figure for all other pupils was 57.9 per cent.
Fourteen years ago there were also major problems with the school attendance of this group. The report states: “In 2012, white FMS (Free School Meals) pupils ‘are’ much more likely to be absent than other pupils.”
Despite spending an eye-watering £30bn on pupil premium funding since 2011(funding that should have been used to address the underperformance and disengagement of poorer white pupils) the situation has worsened.
This level of failure would not have been tolerated if it came from any other ethnic, cultural or religious group. The blame lies not simply on the government and wider society, but on the families in question: a culture of low expectations characterises many poorer white families in Britain.
Without a radical change of direction for pupils, the country is ‘heading for disaster’
Credit: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Without radical change we are heading for further disaster. This will require generational, rather than politically constrained, planning because so many of the challenges that will emerge as we move towards 2050 are already locked into the system.
Advertisement
How do we know this?
If in doubt, talk to any professional working with the four-year-olds and five-year-olds in our schools who come from multi-generational poor white backgrounds.
They are arriving, in their thousands, to classrooms in nappies, suffering from dental neglect, unable to communicate at even the simplest level, exhausted from poor sleep patterns, showing early signs of screen addiction and suffering the consequences of a very poor diet, including diverticulitis.
Though these parental failings are by no means exclusive to poor white British families, they are disproportionately represented within that group.
The additional learning challenges that those children have when arriving at school, and which will continue with them throughout their education, are ultimately homemade. They are not victims of a conspiracy by the educational establishment. Their plight is inflicted by their families. Acknowledging this should be the first step in trying to address this issue.
The reports into underperformance by poor white pupils make concerning reading. But their content will be entirely eclipsed by what will emerge in 10 years’ time.
Advertisement
Sir John Townsley is the chief executive of the Gorse Academies Trust, which includes 15 schools in and around Leeds. This article was originally published on June 15

Apologies, did not ‘overly’ mention FSM.

This is interesting.

My husband's family and my friends family have strong coal mining backgrounds.

I've studied their family history.

There are efforts to 'get out'. These families didn't want coal mining for their children. Education was a way to also help educate your children.

On DHs side several go into the army to escape. They are offered the opportunity by WW1 and WW2 and they were told by their fathers to do everything they could to 'get out'. Another managed to save and become a milk man.

On mine side I do have coal mining but it goes back much further in time. These men got out by being entrepreneurial. In addition to coal mining jobs they set up grocery type stores on the side - often initially worked by the women. These men tended to have supervisory roles so we're better paid than other miners. The men who got these roles did so through showing leadership, being popular and working hard.

On my friend's side, it's a little more complex. She also has army who 'get out' but this goes back to the Boer War. She also has widowed coal mining women from mining accidents who were destitute and were left with the kids. The mines supported them a little but they had to work almost extra hard from an early age just to survive, with the boys in the family forced to grow up and take responsibilities particularly early. The community did rally around these families in a way that was different from other widows. They almost had a different status. This next generation - the children of the killed miner - are the ones that eventually'get out'. I'm guessing there's a clear extra motivation to leave such a dangerous occupation behind because of the trauma to the family.

The direct descendants of those that got out largely became lower middle class over time. They got and took opportunities because they were ultimately available and it was seen that there was a way to 'get out'.

So I would very much argue that for many it really was worth it. Not for everyone but there was a possibility.

I think one of the current issues is this sense that there are no opportunities. There is no possibility. Generally speaking the talk today is about a lack of jobs even for educated middle class young people and an overall sense of constriction of opportunities for everyone, with those at the bottom of the social status scale most impacted by this. There is a sense of hopelessness that didn't exist in an era which believed that education and hard work could 'set you free'.

A culture of instant gratification and no need to work doesn't help this. There's still a level of comfort which doesn't motivate for improvement. There is a lack of aspiration. "Aspirations aren't for people like me". All these career talks are from someone in a high flying job who is usually middle class. These aren't 'people like me'.

Our measures of success are also crucial. Is success going to university. Or is success holding down a good well paying job which might be a manual job but pays you enough not to claim benefits? The way we measured success matters and reflects society and attitudes - we should be exploring this too because success is only really thought of as having gone to university and this really isn't helping a huge number of young people INCLUDING more affluent kids who do go down this route.

Having a child at 16 isn't exactly a great decision to make. When my children were 16 they were focused on their GCSEs.

I’m white, not well off, had ds when I was 16 so probably expected to be a worse parent than older mums. I cook from scratch and he does homework every evening. I’ve never smoked or even vaped.

There are no non white parents wasting money on tracksuits or weed? A walk around London would tell a different story. Probably get called racist for even saying that but why is it ok to generalise about white parents and act like they don’t care about education if you did that about other groups it would be racist.

It does right now as it stands because it means the children likely live in a home where neither parent works. In September it won’t, some middle class kids will also get it.

Not work. It’s difficult to define someone as working class if they’re never actually in work.

Would Sir John Townsley keep his job if he published a similar article with “white” replaced with “black” and centred it around knife/gang/drug crime?

The poster you quoted wasn't talking about white british vs black british, she was talking about first gen immigrants vs white unemployed british.

Poor (by economic measures) white British children do badly and struggle to get out of a cycle of deprivation for some of the reasons that have been addressed in this thread.

Statistically children in a low income household, with a very young and possibly unqualified mother are less likely to achive. This doesn't mean you yourself are a bad mum, it's just stats

My parents are the offspring of two such men, in fact my father also studied in the evening after a day's work. My parents, both working class, both had professional careers and valued education. Their children all have good careers.

But it's not just about careers, it's about a love of learning, an appreciation of art, music, travel, history, the natural world. For my grandparents it was the lectures and concerts they attended.

In the area I live there are so many opportunities for children from deprived families, heavily subsidised or free, but most families never take advantage of these opportunities.

Having a child at 16 ain't exactly the smart move. I grew up in India. When I was 16 I was studying for the equivalent of GCSEs.

When my kids were 16 they were focused on their studies and getting good GCSEs so they could study their A-levels.

That doesn't pay the bills, though. There are lots of very knowledgable poor people. Reading books and watching plays hasn't translated very well into a job that pays enough to keep them off of benefits.

I think there have been many such reports published over the last 20 years.

The Townley report is pointing out facts that school teachers know because they see the results every single day. The report headline is not the important factor here. Please don't take it personally. It doesn't take away from the fact that there are many children being failed by the people who should be their champions and cheerleaders, who should have their best interests at heart.

My DH took it on himself to do courses to up skill, improve and learn some marketable skills.

I'd say the changes will now encompass some working class, but not middle class.

What middle class people are on these benefits? Many working class people aren't on these benefits, either.

Core Qualifying Benefits (England)
Your child qualifies if you receive any of the following benefits:
Universal Credit (regardless of your household earnings).
Income Support.
Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).
Income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).
Support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
The guaranteed element of Pension Credit.
Child Tax Credit (provided you are not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190).
Working Tax Credit run-on (paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit

Source: Google AI.

But they have more of a chance than someone who doesn't engage and wilfully refuses to appreciate the value of education.

You can sit back and say oh, what's the point, they'll never get a job anyway. Or, you can try and break the cycle, and thereby give a child better prospects, better life chances. Give a child a future that hopefully doesn't revolve around addiction, criminality, abuse.

The eligibility is changing to all recieving UC. Which will mean millions more people including some middle class families.
You’ll be surprised how some quite high earners still receive a bit of UC.

Especially middle class mums whose husbands have eloped.

Well that's because in practice, it hasn't worked out that they've ended up a lot better off. They have more things to talk about.

I'll give you an example. I am from a WC/UC background, I got good GCSEs (A*-B) but I went to jail when I was 19 for 3 years and didnt get Level 3 qualifications beforehand.

I came out, got with a guy who is a labourer who has no GCSEs, and we've been self employed and worked our way up to a middle classed position in terms of money and assets at least. We met because we were basically still in the "wrong" circles. His skills have saved us a shitload of money.

My school friend is a nurse, married to a civil servant, who has no criminal record and has done all the right things at the right times. They live in a shitty rental and don't qualify for any financial help. The chances of them moving up at all are remote.

She has not been rewarded for doing the right things. I did the wrong things, and still essentially gained despite being caught for it. And no I didnt invest or launder any money to get what I have now. That isn't my point. It's basically luck. I got lucky.

Lexibletheflexible, excellent, so let's just stop trying - everyone can sink or swim due to their own dumb luck.

Or move towards a society where your hard work is actually rewarded and it isn't nepotism and privilege that decides whether you make it out or not.

If my partner's Uncle didnt own a firm where he could work and mature and learn, he would never have gained the skills he has. He'd have more likely been the proverbial 40 year old labourer now.