White disadvantaged pupils failed for decades - a national scandal

[noblegiraffe]

A group of MPs have produced a report detailing how white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have been neglected for decades leading to poorer educational outcomes than almost any other ethnic group.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-57558746

Given that the Tories have been in power for a decade, have they accepted their part in this? Well they seem to have gone with deciding that the phrase ‘White privilege’ is the real issue here.

Yes, white working class pupils have been neglected, but the implication is that is because other groups have been prioritised.

This is a government who:

1. have systematically underfunded education since they got in
2. have cut Pupil premium funding
3. are the sort to express horror at state school kids getting prioritised for Oxbridge places
4. have done fuck all for any other underachieving groups

And they’re only now concerned about white working class kids because

1. they think it might play well to the red wall
2. they can use it to score points in a tedious fucking culture war

Will we see any more money for schools (particularly early years) as a result? I doubt it.

Cat I'm not sure what you're objecting to? We know the highest performing ethnic groups in the UK from exam data. Is it the reason for those groups being the highest performing that you are disputing?

I think I'm just being hyper-sensitive. 😁

Plus, I do wonder about why US researchers go so wild about this.

You know, the other interesting fact about Chinese-heritage high-achievers is that, much like well-qualified girls, despite the high academic attainment and qualifications, they earn less than their similarly-qualified (or less well-qualified) counterparts.

I'm confused too cat... I think it's very encouraging that many Chinese from low income families on fsm can get incredible results... I think more research should be done in this, they are obviously doing something right.. The same with the Eastern Europeans (well the ones I know!)
I'm sure there are many factors contributing to Chinese students undisputed success & it looks more nurture over nature... Can we learn from them?

@thecatfromjapan

I think I'm just being hyper-sensitive. 😁

Plus, I do wonder about why US researchers go so wild about this.

You know, the other interesting fact about Chinese-heritage high-achievers is that, much like well-qualified girls, despite the high academic attainment and qualifications, they earn less than their similarly-qualified (or less well-qualified) counterparts.

Well cat if that's the case they are victims of racism which is appalling

OK.

I'm being over-sensitive.

It depends on if they are doing the same job.

If they are achieving highly and then becoming, I dunno, teachers instead of investment bankers, then that will depress their income.

@noblegiraffe

It depends on if they are doing the same job.

If they are achieving highly and then becoming, I dunno, teachers instead of investment bankers, then that will depress their income.

Indeed.

Also, the 'culture' argument isn't as simple as 'putting a high value on education' - which is the main argument in that article.

It's also about culture-originated behaviours that equip a child to learn in large, sometimes noisy, sometimes very distracting, classes, where learning is probably not individualised.

So I guess that's where I often wonder about the research focus on Asian/Chinese high-achievers.

It's as though the research wants to find 'patterns' that enable some individuals to achieve within a system in which many don't do well.

An argument then emerges that says: 'Well, if you just do x and y, you'll succeed - this is your responsibility.'

Rather than saying, 'x, y and z seem to be factors in why so many children ^don't succeed' and trying to change that.

(And, yes, I think large classes is one such factor. But reducing class sizes is less cost-effective than increasing teacher workload with other interventions ... but that's another argument ...)

But, yes, I think I'm being over-sensitive and probably unfair ...

Well they wouldn't be 'failing' if they were all allowed to study things more accessible and relevant.

If we were judged on how to build a wall or do some plumbing then I would fail.

Let them learn some useful skills instead of making them sit in a classroom all day. Then they will thrive.

We're not all designed to sit and study Gove's dry diet of Ebacc subjects. And I say this as someone who teaches an Ebacc subject.

I don't agree with profiling academic ability according to race. The colour of someone's skin is not relevant to me.

We're not all designed to sit and study Gove's dry diet of Ebacc subjects

No, but we need to be careful that we don't perpetuate social inequity by funnelling off the disadvantaged kids to the 'vocational' path while the middle classes make sure that their kids are doing the academic qualifications that lead to higher paid professions, particularly as so many jobs require a degree these days.

Have to say that I agree with noble.

I grew up in an old-style 11+ area, where children were rigidly sorted at 11.

Those who were deemed able to sit through 'dry' academic learning went to a grammar.

Those deemed unsuited to anything so dull went to schools where no 'O' levels were on offer.

Some were sent off to schools that best fitted their practical nature and simply did cookery and woodwork.

I often think that a lot of people who think children unsuited to dry, academic studies should be permitted a different educational path don't see themselves (or their own children) pursuing the non-academic route.

@thecatfromjapan

Also, the 'culture' argument isn't as simple as 'putting a high value on education' - which is the main argument in that article.

It's also about culture-originated behaviours that equip a child to learn in large, sometimes noisy, sometimes very distracting, classes, where learning is probably not individualised.

So I guess that's where I often wonder about the research focus on Asian/Chinese high-achievers.

It's as though the research wants to find 'patterns' that enable some individuals to achieve within a system in which many don't do well.

An argument then emerges that says: 'Well, if you just do x and y, you'll succeed - this is your responsibility.'

Rather than saying, 'x, y and z seem to be factors in why so many children ^don't succeed' and trying to change that.

(And, yes, I think large classes is one such factor. But reducing class sizes is less cost-effective than increasing teacher workload with other interventions ... but that's another argument ...)

It could also be argued that some children of colour from deprived backgrounds need university or further education to reach the same level as uneducated white people from deprived areas. I know a lot of Indian and Romany families don’t trust the government to take care of them at all. Indian families go into this through education and professions / qualifications that are transferrable across countries; while Romany families tend to focus on skills and trades that are also transferrable across any country or location. In both cultures claiming benefits even when you’re entitled to them is frowned upon as you should be self-sufficient or be able to rely on family to get by. Even women are seen as failing their kids by claiming benefits and so households probably do struggle a lot more as many may not even know what they’re entitled to. This in turn motivates kids to do better, earn more, eithe legitimately or illegitimately or both.

I think white working people probably don’t have that driver. If they grow up in a benefits household they probably quickly learn what to do to get what they are entitled to and can live a fairly comfortable life. They can trust the government to take care of them as they’re a native and probably have no motivation to do any better because they’re comfortable (as they are getting everything they are entitled to). To turn this around the government probably needs to do even more to tie working to greater financial rewards. Things like linking benefits to minimum wage, but linking minimum salaries to living wage would help; as would raising the threshold for which working households can claim tax credits; so those who earn more can claim more. I also think the full 30 hours free childcare should only be given to working parents while non-working parents should get lower amounts and have this tied to jobseeking / eligibility for disability or caring responsibilities. By doing it this way it could make childcare cheaper as more people would be contributing over the minimum while also still providing some benefit to children from deprived backgrounds. I also think there should be some kind of accountability measures introduced for benefits to make sure money is being spent on children - we’ve seen and referred so many cases of neglect in our nursery where kids are losing weight / unwashed / wearing ripped clothes / telling us they aren’t eating at home but parents are always carrying around the latest devices / wearing new designer clothes.

Sorry. That last post was waaay too huffy.

I think I'm being a horrible old grump.

I'll try and stop.

Back to the culture thing. The Spirit Level (yes, again!) disputes that culture is a main reason for a lot of societal ills/benefits. They don't look at China, to be fair (as it is too complicated :a s a super nation you have to split out eg Shanghai) but they do point to the fact that both Sweden and Japan have very small equality gaps , high levels of educational performance, child well being, low suicide, good mental health, low rates of various disease, lower crime and imprisonment rates and are culturally very different. They also create their low equality through entirely different economic methods.

Saying 'it's their culture' is a very easy way of not addressing things at societal level.

cat is right about pay of people of Chinese descent. No group does better than WBRI (particularly male) out of receiving HE , and the government ought also to be looking at this.

ozanj your final paragraph is one of the most New Right things I have read in along time , and completely different form what they do in Scandinavian countries.

Lots of studies (not juts my beloved SL) point to the gap as being the important thing - ie relative, not absolute poverty and a sense of 'knowing your place'. Even back in 1967, James Patrick observed that Glasgow Gang members felt no desire to lift themselves out of the gang and their life because they felt there was no point in trying. It was not linked to financial comfort, reward or gain at all. They see the people in society who succeed as being utterly inaccessible to them , so there is no point in even trying. The odds are stacked. that has nothing at all to do with benefits, or material possessions.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/23/how-white-working-class-underachievement-has-been-used-to-demonise-antiracism

cat is right about pay of people of Chinese descent. No group does better than WBRI (particularly male) out of receiving HE , and the government ought also to be looking at this.
This is what infuriated me about the whole thing. Yes a sector ofwhite working class boys might be doing comparatively worse on one measure of achievement. But that doesn't seem to be impacting overall on life opportunities and outcomes. As a feminist I'm all too familiar with the men's rights activists tactics of cherry picking data to make it seem like an actual structural problems affecting people who aren't white men, either don't exist or are equivalent to a slightly similar problem facing white men.

I'm absolutely enraged that our government are employing these tactics. And horrified. I feel like I'm in some kind of Nazi-esque nightmare where the government are upholding white male supremacy. It might seem an overreaction but it does terrify me that we are heading down a very bad path.

Have you read the Guardian article I linked Quentin? It's spot on.

Sadly, as it is The Guardian , it will be dismissed.

Just read it. Yes, I agree. Going to share with everyone I know.
I'm so horrified though. I can't imagine how it must feel to be BAME in this country at the moment. I hate this divisive attitude.

TheHoneyBadger

So what do you call it when one section of the class is tested one way and the other a more difficult way? All I was asking was that when they tested for spellings they tested him the way they tested the EAL pupils and the homework that those who couldn’t read or write English was the same where ever you were born

I think it would have helped with all the SEN pupils
It wouldn’t have cost anymore money.

It would have given ds and other SEN pupils so much more confidence.

Ds couldn’t read or write. He was definitely the one who struggled the most.
He did feel singled out. The EAL group had different homework that helped them because they couldn’t read or write English. His homework relied on the fact that at age 7 (6 for him because he was a summer born) he would be able to read and write so his homework was stuff like comprehension that he couldn’t comprehend as he couldn’t read it.
It might as well have been in a foreign language.

To him he saw his friend being able to play out and run around but he had to sit inside every break to do his homework which he had no idea how to do because he couldn’t read it

His teacher called me in to say he was obstinate because he refused to write anything
When I said he couldn’t write anything as he didn’t know how to read and write, the reply was he had to complete the homework regardless as it was part of the National Curriculum and it had to be done.
I was then told to look at a school that catered for those children with severe learning difficulties as he was never going to keep up.
The only people pitting one group against the other was the teachers I came across

I think you might be talking about senior school children if they have mobile phones
I am talking about primary

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jun/23/tory-lessons-on-class-privilege-and-poverty

Some interesting comments in the Guardian letters page today on the impact of poverty on education.

Particularly thought provoking was the comment that for the working classes, education is seen (by the authorities) as controlling and disciplinary rather than educating or empowering.

@Bythemillpond

TheHoneyBadger

So what do you call it when one section of the class is tested one way and the other a more difficult way? All I was asking was that when they tested for spellings they tested him the way they tested the EAL pupils and the homework that those who couldn’t read or write English was the same where ever you were born

I think it would have helped with all the SEN pupils
It wouldn’t have cost anymore money.

It would have given ds and other SEN pupils so much more confidence.

Ds couldn’t read or write. He was definitely the one who struggled the most.
He did feel singled out. The EAL group had different homework that helped them because they couldn’t read or write English. His homework relied on the fact that at age 7 (6 for him because he was a summer born) he would be able to read and write so his homework was stuff like comprehension that he couldn’t comprehend as he couldn’t read it.
It might as well have been in a foreign language.

To him he saw his friend being able to play out and run around but he had to sit inside every break to do his homework which he had no idea how to do because he couldn’t read it

His teacher called me in to say he was obstinate because he refused to write anything
When I said he couldn’t write anything as he didn’t know how to read and write, the reply was he had to complete the homework regardless as it was part of the National Curriculum and it had to be done.
I was then told to look at a school that catered for those children with severe learning difficulties as he was never going to keep up.
The only people pitting one group against the other was the teachers I came across

I think you might be talking about senior school children if they have mobile phones
I am talking about primary

EAL pupils can often speak, read and write in 2-3 languages; and depending on the country may even have numeracy skills that far exceed their cohort. They know how to read they just don’t know English. In many schools this is understood and the children will often learn English through TEFL mechanisms which aren’t suitable for SEN pupils at all. But it should be noted SEN often is delayed in terms of diagnosis for EAL pupils because of this.

I think the next issue will be colleges and trades.

If you want to do a trade or go down the “non academic” route you now have to be academic in order to proceed

Ds trained at college, the only one in the area that would take him at the time to learn a particular trade.
Despite getting up to Level 2 snd finishing top of the class with an average score on all his assessments and tests of 97.5% he can’t continue to level 3 and qualify because he doesn’t have English Language GCSE.
The only person who did have the relevant GCSEs who passed level 2 decided to go to university so no one made it through to Level 3. But then we are told that the U.K. doesn’t have enough trades people.