White British pupils underperforming because of parents

[noblegiraffe]

White British pupils are underperforming at GCSE and it's because of the parents claims a report out today:
www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/04/white-children-falling-behind-other-groups-at-gcse

So what do families from other cultures do differently?

The feminisation of teaching, especially in the early years, is a problem for boys imo

Pirate it's not clear from this what you mean by the feminisation of teaching? Do you mean expecting boys to sit down and read a book like girls do, or not expecting boys to sit down and read a book because they're boys?

Pirate my son will read but it's very much on his terms. He goes through the school reading scheme books at a rate of knots because they get points for doing the quizzes and he wants to be the one with the top number of points, he's extremely competitive. He's had all the encouragement to love books and if he finds a book he likes then he will read it in a day but he refuses to look at books and so on, it's a nightmare. School have been f* all use in encouraging him. I just get the crap that he's a typical boy, thankfully he is interested in learning and that makes up for it - I can get him to read but on his terms; he'll read BBC History magazine or National Geographic but won't touch a fiction book.

"They're already housed for life by the council and/or their parents, and with 70 quid a week dole money, they're making a hefty profit on what they'd get in a NMW job. "

I know 3 women who are in their 30's, with secure tendencies on 4 bedroom houses, the equivalent of 55k a year in earned income each through benefits (40k in hand to cover all living costs including rent). None of them has any qualifications or work experience. They have achieved this income and secure housing by producing 6 children each as single parents.

It's a general impression noblegiraffe which probably encompasses a number of things. For example, teachers preferring to teach girls (as was my experience), teachers not believing that boys enjoy reading, boys behaviour being perceived as worse than girls simply because of their gender.
I may be wrong, but I believe it's an issue in our education system.

Would add, this was the case a couple of years ago - they are all struggling now with the benefits cap.

Pirate I agree. Boys do seem to be seen negatively in the education system, in fact in general. A midwife told me that my son was being a lazy boy because he didn't kick much! She had to listen to a diatribe as well.

Pirate I don't know about primary but in the secondary I teach at, boys' behaviour (as a whole) is worse than girls' behaviour (as a whole), when considering persistent low-level disruption in lessons.

Eh? Surely this is worrying for everyone, no matter what paper they read? Or because it's class-based you think the Telegraph readers won't give a shit?

It's certainly worrying for everyone, yes. It upsets what I would loosely refer to as the 'Guardian' narrative because it implies that it's a cultural rather than governmental deficiency that has given rise to poor achievement amongst the white working class. That could also be viewed as an indictment of Labour giving money to people to stay home for decades.

I wonder why that is noblegiraffe?

noble why do you think that is? I wonder if it's a self fulfilling prophecy - boys are expected to be that way and so they are.
I'm a single parent on benefits and so I could just accept that my children won't do well academically and will grow up to be feckless scroungers with ASBOs who will be pregnant/have got their girlfriends pregnant at 16. I won't accept that and my two have grown up with the expectation that their school reports will always have straight As for effort and the knowledge that I would give them a hard time if there was anything less but I could equally have bought into the stereotype of the lone parent and low achieving kids who didn't stand a chance of achieving anything.

pirate my guess would be that girls are socialised from a young age to be people-pleasers and sit nicely and not get their dress dirty, where boys are socialised to tear around and be active, messy 'little monsters', while people shake their heads indulgently saying 'boys will be boys'.

I don't know really, but your comment that the perception of boys' behaviour being worse than girls' in primary either is based in fact, or becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I agree with the increasing feminisation of early education.Infants are expected to conform and sit quietly from a very young age.Even PE was set up.to be very controlled ( and boring according to ds2).
The syllabus has become so narrow - especially in SATs years - virtually no Sciences ,foreign languages no music.
Derxa I think teachers become disaffected maybe because of SATs.Repeated teaching of the same topics must be very boring.My kids had homework set once a week.It was hardly ever marked.One time my DD spent days drawing a very detailed comic-strip poster on a ' happy heart'.It was never collected in and the teacher never mentioned it again.We actually used it as part of her application for an arts scholarship.at the local independent school.

There was a very neat table out last year which I now can't find which split GCSE results by race (broader groupings than this report), sex and FSM/non-FSM.

It was obvious that for almost every comparable group, rich trumped poor, girls trumped boys, and non-white trumped white. So a non-FSM south-Asian boy would do better than a FSM south-Asian boy, or a non-FSM white boy, but worse than a non-FSM south Asian girl.

The exceptions were the Chinese children who did exceptionally well regardless of financial status, and the non-FSM black children who did a little worse than the non-FSM white children, (but I suspect that the latter is attributable to the fact that "non-FSM" is a very broad-brush measure of wealth, and the results might reverse if you split down properly by family income quartile).

Increasingly some parents complain about so much - there is an expectation that it the school alone that educates.

If children are doing better up to the age of 5, then surely it is schools that are lettingt the kids down.Would be interested to know how the resesracher has isolated 'parental support' as the reason for under achievement. I find it hard to believe that a family eating meals together really outweighs all the educational stuff going on at school
My belief is that 'minority groups' have in thepast been targeted as prioities in schools.
Wonder whether white kids will now be top focus.r

Yep, definitely not pate

Oops.

Yep, definitely not the parents fault at all, how could it possibly be that they would be the biggest influence over their children...

If children are doing better up to the age of 5, then surely it is schools that are lettingt the kids down

I don't think so. It's the gap between kids who are native speakers of English and those who are not, which of course closes with relative ease as the non-English natives are immersed in English.

"Educate the parents is the obvious answer. Would they engage? Not the ones here they wouldn't, no bloody chance"

I reckon they would if you increased child benefit but only made it payable if parents fully attended parenting courses and passed a test at the end...

I taught in inner-city London between 2000 & 2004. White working class boys were the underachieving group in that school at that time.

I now teach in a rural school. We. Have very little ethnic diversity other than new eastern-European immigrants. 40% PP students and low parental interest.

Our biggest issue is PP boys

I don't think that boys' behaviour is worse than girls' in my school. In fact, the poorly behaved girls are vile, compared to the poorly behaved boys. One or two Ks4 girls are really quite unpleasant - rude, entitled, full of the unfairness of life (when asked to get away from the mirror and go to lesson/put phones away/put ties on) Their attitudes are not something they've learned at school. That much is clear from conversations with their parents.

My belief is that 'minority groups' have in thepast been targeted as prioities in schools.

Children in receipt of PP funding have been the 'focus' since 2010. The only 'minority group' which receives any sort of local focus is Travellers.

The focus on narrowing the gap of ethnic and special needs groups has brought down standards not raised them. If the money spent on the pupil premium was put in to tuition rather than trips to theme parks and additional fun activities then it would benefit more pupilss

twelly do you have any idea about he grilling that a school's PP co-ordinator and nominated governor are put through by an Ofsted inspector? The spend of each item and it's effect on raising attainment are questioned. Why do you think it isn't used for tuition?

My friends moved from Poland about 10 years ago, they have built up a business that doesn't earn much but pays their rent. They have 2 dc and receive or at least did receive tax credits.
They pay a proportion of school fees but were state school until recently.
The children are usually working and their mum doesn't agree with them doing nothing.
They get down time but they have to work hard, it's expected of them.
The eldest received mostly A* at GCSE and along with her native Polish learned 2 languages at school, and another 4 privately outside school that friends taught her for free.
The girl has about 15 GCSE all together and will no doubt gain top marks at A level too.
I'm not saying the mum is right but she pushes like mad and expects the best at all times.