Underachievement of British white working class boys

[ReallyTired]

Does fear of being accused of racism really stop teachers from focussing on this under achieving group? Surely all childen who are underachieving should be given help irrespective of skin colour. I believe that the working poor have simple issues with lack of money to free school meal kids. First generation immigrants are often very ambitious otherwise they would not move country.

How can we make schools ambitious for the achievment of all children? Or is it parents who need to be helped to be more ambitious.

A lot of times, it's actually the parents' attitude to education. Not that much an issue of money. The UK is so entrenched in the class system (reverse snobbery), it'seriously shocking.

I don't think the underachievement of white boys has anything to do with racism.

Historically working-class boys have never really engaged with education, and this was not a problem as they went into manual labour jobs that didn't require school education. The main problem is that these jobs are no longer numerous enough to accommodate them.

It also makes me weep when people fixate on a lack of ambition or aspiration, in other words, blaming those at the bottom for the state of the economy.

If all working-class kids got degrees how would that help? We would still need people to clean toilets and sweep roads and pay them shit wages. In other words, the lack of engagement with education could be seen as realism rather than a lack of ambition.

"If all working-class kids got degrees how would that help? We would still need people to clean toilets and sweep roads and pay them shit wages. In other words, the lack of engagement with education could be seen as realism rather than a lack of ambition. "

Do seriously believe that some people are born to grow up and clean toilets. (Rather like the verse of All things Bright and Beautiful "The rich man in his castle the poor man at his gate.." or the Hindu caste system. There is a difference between giving somone the opportunity to get a degree and giving them a degree.

Access to higher education should be based on hard work and intelligence rather than social class. The pupil premium is being used to help some children whose parents completely lack ambition.

You completely misunderstand.

The fact is that until we value toilet cleaners and road cleaners in the same way as doctors and accountants, we will not get rid of social class.

By focusing exclusively on the 'failure' of some groups within a elitist educational system build on middle-class values, we are blaming the individual rather than the structure of society.

OFSTED no longer tolerate any group of pupils being written off allowed to underachieve. Schools are developing strategies that target particular underachieving groups and finding ways of motivating and teaching them specifically that deliver better outcomes. It is recognised that that is the only way to improve the outcomes for groups like white working class boys and travellers. I have seen OFSTED reports that referred specifically to those two groups as areas in which schools had to improve and commented on the progress made with targeted initiatives. eg "Better use of information about how well students are learning and the employment of a specialist learning mentor have resulted in much better achievement over the past two years for White British students. Over the past two years, the proportion of these students gaining at least five grades A*-C, including English and mathematics, has increased fourfold."

creamteas Funny isn't it, how Gove never cherry picks his educational strategies from Finland when looking for examples higher up the PISA tables to support his dogma. But then a more egalitarian society that supports an education system that gives pupils a chance at 16 to decide between equally valued vocational and academic routes, no testing until 17 and which really values it's teachers to the extent that it is a prestigious career choice that can select the top 10 % of graduates wouldn't appeal, would it? Although I tend to think school culture is always going to have it's roots in wider culture it would certainly help if there was more focus on the value of vocational education for those who are always going to struggle at the D /C boundary at GCSE, even with all the motivation in the world.

The studies generally show that the underachievement has more to do with class rather than race especially now that we have an underclass in our society, of which a large proportion of white working class boys fall into.

It is truly depressing.

There will only be an improvement in the academic achievement of white working class boys once there is an improvement in their general home environment. Just improving their opportunities in and around school and their education is, as a generaliry, not going to reap the benefits expected if they have to go back home each evening to the same environment.

Now I have no idea how you do this however until we tackle the problems in society, the underachieverment of white working class boys will continue.

Pushka I have just provided an example where a school is helping white working class pupils to achieve. Whilst people are loudly nursing their middle class prejudices the teaching professionals are quietly working away at finding ways to help such groups overcome their disadvantages.

Shooting Do they actually work? Most yong children need parent involvement/encouragement.

As a born and bred working glass girl and a qualified teacher, I know only too well that the education system works for the middle classes in society. Hence why social mobility in the UK is still low, tied to the parents income and hasn't improved in 40 years. I'm one of those who has moved social class and over achieved however this was nothing to do with the school - my school was dreadful and had never sent anybody to university. I actually think the education system now is far better than when I went to school but with respect to OFSTED, I take little notice of the inspections as they are essentially a tick box exercise. Schools have been rated as "outstanding" when they are "good". Schools have been rated as "satisfactory" when they are "good", sometimes because of fairly insignificant things eg not having a detailed enough website. In addition, the rating you get will differ whether you get HMI of Ofsted or Tribal, the outsourced inspectorate (notoriously petty and not a little political, if I understand it correctly).

Whilst I don't doubt that most schools are doing what they can to support and improve underachievers, my point is that without tackling the wider issues, the impact the school will have is minimal. There may be some white working class boys who achieve in spite of the odds stacked aganst them but they will be the exception rather than the rule.

I agree that the focus purely on academic achievement rather than a choice of vocational/academic routes is somewhat shortsighted and if right for them, I for one will be encouraging my DC's to go and train as carpenters/electricians/plumbers rather than incur huge student loans only to work in a office job they don't enjoy.

As regards Gove, we all know he is absolutely clueless about education.

I think the point is that people from disadvantaged backgrounds have always been enabled to overcome their background and achieved in spite of it (or even because of it). It is just much much harder for them to get the right opportunities and role models, society gives those with all the advantages yet more. I have been involved with a mentoring charity, the children we help are selected by teachers who spot that they are very bright. Often having a mentor is the only source of encouragement, motivation and knowledge beyond teachers (and that can be very patchy) and what is with in themselves. Their families are bewildered by their motivation and ambition and their peers think it deeply uncool. I would have thought there is a lot teachers can do to support disadvantaged pupils and the London Challenge and OFSTED seem to suggest that targeting these groups to develop new strategies and sharing best practise is making a difference and can achieve a lot more. Getting such a dramatic improvement as to improve your proportion getting 5 A-C four fold in three years (in a very deprived area where the white working class experience some of the worst poverty in the country, the Council estate served is notorious) suggest to me that there is a lot more room to achieve better outcomes with more focus and sharing of best practise.

Pushka I take an interest in this school because some of my nieces went there, I quoted OFSTED because it was objective evidence of what they are telling me. A specialist mentor is working with these boys and finding ways to push their buttons and get them to work.

I went to a school where there was an expectation of underachievement. Against the odds, I have done very well. The problem lies in embedded expectation levels (school/child/parents) and having inspirational teachers.

The City Challenge was particularly effective in urban areas with a high but relatively homogenous immigrant population - particularly Newham and Tower Hamlets - where the LAs were particularly switched on. But it wasn't as effective in areas like Manchester or the West Midlands, particularly at closing attainment gaps or raising Ofsted ratings.

And since the academies programme has been speeded up, there are more barriers to collaboration between schools. Many community schools where there is a majority white working class population have been taken over by underperforming academy chains, but are also in or next to areas of selective schooling, e.g. in Kent and the East of England so structurally start from a much lower level of attainment. And the real problem areas are remote coastal areas with poor infrastructure and high unemployment which find it hard to attract the best teachers.

ReallyTired to address your post, while it may not be racist to define this group of under-achievers as 'British White working class boys' it may not be accurate enough a label, or an easy group to target, because it may be 50-100% of a school.

Just skim-reading evidence to the education committee in their enquiry on this and they are careful to point out there is also underachievement among 'any other white' in some groups and some areas - e.g. Portuguese and some east Europeans.

If class and parental expectations are an issue - including parents' own negative experiences transmitted to their children - then that affects girls of those families too. But defining 'working class' is problematic in itself whether for funding or targeting - 60% of the population define themselves in this way but not all are eligible for the pupil premium.

And another problem with labels is that the cumulative effect of negative messages has all too often had the effect of switching pupils off:

'if you are placed in a low set or a low-ability table from age six, pick up the messages that you are being told about your place in the education system, and then you go through school in a low set, you are pretty resilient to survive at all, I would say, and come out intact.'

Strangely enough, in NI there is a disparity between protestant and Catholic working class boys, with protestants at the bottom of the heap and RCs doing better. The reasons posited for the disparity echo CreamTeas' perspective -- there were solid union jobs for life in the shipyards and the state sector for the protestant working class but only casual labour for Catholic boys. Hence an interest in education and the sort of jobs it could get you.

I think setting in elementary schools has a very negative effect on children who are just developing a sense of who they are.