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?

WC kids did better when they were able to leave at 15/16 and get a job.
I hate to see boys (particularly) who are not academic being expected to sit still all day and do subjects they are not good at, have no interest in, and ultimately are completely pointless for them, and so even if they try, they are constantly 'failing'/
Write a Shakesperean soliloquy. Describe the contents of your pencil case in Spanish.
I would love to see kids do a couple of hour of sport every morning, and then some lessons in relevant practical useful subjects in the afternoon, with the next sport depending o the effort they put in in the afternoon.

I hate to see boys (particularly) who are not academic being expected to sit still all day and do subjects they are not good at, have no interest in, and ultimately are completely pointless for them, and so even if they try, they are constantly 'failing'

One of the big problems I think is that kids are "forced" up through school according to their age rather than ability. So, yes, kids who can't read or write properly are expected to do languages or humanities or evaluate a poem. Kids who can't do maths are expected to do physics and chemistry and move onto equations etc when they can't even do basic times tables. They're being set up to fail. There should be a method of holding kids back and doing, redoing, the basics until they're at least basically literate and numerate, and doing practical skills alongside. It's far too academic for the non academics - a classic fail of the comp "one size fits all" approach which fails the kids at the top and the bottom of the spectrum.

MrsGuy - I agree with 100%. Asking DC to pursue academic subjects that are excruciatingly badly taught and in which they have no interest (eg MFL) is all wrong. But then, hasn't school become a means by which we keep youth of the streets and make their parents responsible for them for longer? As opposed to a place that prepares them for real life?

As a nation we lambast white pushy parents in the media,on here,outside the school gate, in some schools too. We cite hot housing,sharp elbowed middle classes,tiger parenting,pushy parents,helicopter parenting,mental health issues etc,etc. Tutoring or extra work of any kind is seen as the work of the devil.

I think a lot of this is borne of the question: does hot housing really work? rather than merely dismissing it out of hand as silly. Obviously some elements do, otherwise the 'Asian model' wouldn't be so successful. But which parts don't work?

Very true cory.

A previous study found the worse performers were white working class boys in coastal towns. These are often places with very high unemployment. The kids and parents just don't see any point to education - it serves no purpose as they will be unemployed anyway. Sure, some can and do move away but such mobility may not be common.

Oh, and I am not keen on homework in primary school - because a very large international review found little benefit. I would therefore prefer to do things which have been shown to have benefit (like encouraging reading for pleasure).

That makes a lot of sense Blaeberry.

I'd define hot-housing as anything beyond an age-specific time limit per night of core academic revision or activities that are not child-led.

I'm afraid I don't have any experience as a white WC person trying to stretch my child, but I'm sure that must be incredibly frustrating. That said, I don't agree with your comment about a 'mythical childhood'. Playing is learning. We live in London and it makes me terribly sad that my kids aren't outside disecting insects like I was at their age.

I would therefore prefer to do things which have been shown to have benefit (like encouraging reading for pleasure).
Yes! I hated my DC having homework in primary just when I wanted them out playing in the garden until dark.

blaeberry can you link to the large international review please because I can't find it.

I'd be surprised if any study found that it was pointless to do school stuff like reading/times tables practice with your child in the evening. I'd be less surprised if they found that building a model of a castle out of toilet rolls was pointless. Not all homework is equal.

Kids play all over the world,there is no set pattearn. You can make a game out of anything.

Hot-housed city kids (where they tend to live) probably don't play nearly as much as they should.

I agree with the reading but think fast recall of tables are also crucial by the end of primary- however much time it takes up outside of school.

I totally agree, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bit hard of thinking.

Surely, the biggest difficulty us the term 'working class'?
WC in traditional terms, as in people that laboured, has gone. In the Victorian times, many WC people went home and in their evenings, tended their allotments, went to choir practice, art class, debating society, evening classes of all types- the evidence is all around me in the city I live in- all closed down, but the 'institute' buildings are still here, the society buildings, the community gardens and allotments, bowling greens etc. People had a life outside work, one that was rich, fulfilling and rewarding.
Life was still hard then. There wasn't a welfare state- if you had a work related injury, that was your livelihood gone (though you may have had a payout from employer).
The twentieth century, with the welfare state, universal education, two world wars, rise of 'labour-saving' technology changed life in Britain. There isn't a WC any more (well, a v few left). And people have forgotten how to work.

There isnt much home work from school, for this 3 weeks Easter holiday we werent given any home work(primary). In the garden until dark, well, its dark and cold for half the year and the rest of the time was mostly raining so even for anyone who has a garden its felt incredibly lucky for any dry/sunny day.

Regarding to hot housing: why people ask their child to study for 30 mins a day is called hot housing. Its a good routine I'd say. Similar to playing an instrument, we have to practise almost everyday and drawing, you have to draw every so often. Mu daughter isnt interested in academic yet(8 yrs old) even I find we need to drop the extra curr activities alittle. If she was an year 6 then def I will ask her to do some reading, some maths, read some science fun books 30mins each day and why it becomes hot housing. You dont want your child to do it then its your choice, dont make people feel bad when they are helping their children. Working ethics is very important. You cant be having fun (lazy) all the time. When you grow up and if you are well then go to work dont be having fun, sitting tight in front of the tv, 1 hand is a bag of crisp the other hand a lager and complaining about low benefit.

Chinese/East Asian cultures do not put much store in being naturally gifted or good at things - they believe that talent is not necessary, and that success will come with enough work.

I think Moomin has the answer here, or at least a large part of it. There is often an assumption in British culture that you're either clever or you're not. You can do maths or you can't. You're either academic or you're not. And so on.

"Hothousing" and "pushing" are frowned upon. It is generally thought that if you're naturally "bright" and do a reasonable amount of work, you will do well anyway.

Most Asian families I know tend to emphasise ability and talent much less. For them, it's all about hard work and effort. They don't put limits on their expectations based on perceptions of a child's ability. The assumption is that anyone can do really well if they put the work in.

It's a growth mindset as opposed to a fixed mindset. I think this is a massive difference between cultures.

Sure, but it seems as though this study has proven this

There is often an assumption in British culture that you're either clever or you're not. You can do maths or you can't. You're either academic or you're not. And so on.

to be incorrect.

How do you mean, apple?

That's really interesting Brokenbiscuit and makes a lot of sense. I do hear a lot of 'set in stone' comments from both parents and teachers - 'he does X because he's a boy, 'she does Y because she's a girl', 'he's no good at maths, well I was no good at maths either'. And if you believe that these issue are binary, and part of your make-up / genetic inheritance, then they can't be changed (much) so what is the point in working harder etc.?

The 'growth mindset' fits in well with the theory of brain plasticity, where not very much about us is 'hardwired', but skills can be developed and nurtured through practice

I meant that the assumption itself is incorrect - I'm not disagreeing that this is typically British point of view.

Oh I see, apple. Thanks for clarifying - I agree with you.

Not solid data - only observations but:
in my area the single sex selective secondary schools (state) are dominated by ethnic boys and girls, Asian and Chinese.
Them being at these schools is considered natural and the result of application and hard work.
The boys parents do not think their boys are unsuited for study or are somehow hampered by testosterone
The parents do not boast about their children. (Note - yes I do know quite a few of the parents!!!)

Local state primary - all white middle class, parents boast endlessly so even quite ordinary children are painted as something special. Boys are excused a lot as not being "ready".

My colleagues in India - would fall over with shock if you informed them girls were useless at maths and IT. I work in an IT company - lots of women in our Indian offices - all with computing degrees.

So I think a lot of this is cultural.

I went to school to a grammar 30 years ago - if you had told any of the boys in my school that they couldn't be capable of reading a book or doing essays due to being boys there would have been a riot! The boys were very academically competitive and certainly didn't have messy handwriting "because boys can't hold a pen" and similar rubbish I hear spouted by some parents. They were bloody sods for ragging some of the teachers though.

I think at the moment what we are getting in certain sections of the population is an unfortunate coming-together of two ways of thinking:

a traditional WC attitude that higher education is "not for the likes of us", that it is trying to set yourself apart and "be better than the rest of us"
(have come across this attitude in some parents of dc's friends)

and

the perhaps more modern "othering" of the poor as lazy scroungers who do not make a worthwhile contribution to society
(this is hardly likely to lead to very good self esteem in their offspring)

and you might add a specifically British ingredient to the mix:

the general suspicion with which teachers are viewed in this country (by Press, government and parents alike), not as respected educators but as some kind of subversive element
(hard to blame the parents for this attitude when both politicians and journalists speak as if educational policy was all about policing teachers)

A potent brew, cory.

I don't recognise the anti-teacher sentiment IRL, but it seems to be reaching a tipping point in the UK.