Education Select Committee inquiry into ‘Left Behind White Pupils from Disadvantaged Backgrounds’
On Tuesday the Education Select Committee held the first evidence session of it’s inquiry into ‘Left Behind White Pupils from Disadvantaged Backgrounds’. This inquiry forms an initial step in a series of inquiries that the Committee will undertake on the issues faced by disadvantaged and left behind groups and how they can best be supported. The gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers is a key policy focus for Schools North East, and so this inquiry is an important step.
In the first half of the session, evidence was given from Professor Lee Elliot Major, Professor of Social Mobility at the University of Exeter; Diane Reay, Professor of Education at Cambridge; and Professor Matthew Goodwin from the University of Kent.
They began by outlining the statistical evidence of under-attainment among white working class pupils. Matthew Goodwin argued that the statistical case for white disadvantaged children being left behind is not a difficult one to make. The other two witnesses agreed with this point, both noting the concerning trend that the gap between those on Free School Meals and other pupils may be increasing. Diane Reay said that ‘this particular group of White British kids on free school meals not only are still towards the bottom of the ladder, usually eclipsed only by children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller heritage, but also appear to have been overtaken in some cases by groups from other backgrounds, which have made more progress over the past five to six years’.
Following this statistical outline, questions moved on to why white disadvantaged pupils seemed to be falling behind other ethnic groups. Reay pointed towards an educational system that does not empower working-class children, arguing that the curriculum is ‘narrow, elitist, exclusive’. In terms of why white working class children were especially disadvantaged by this, she said that ‘some ethnic groups have come from countries where their families have had generations of educational success, and they have social and cultural capital’.
Major agreed with these points, but went further to discuss the issues of place; ‘what is particularly an issue for some of these White working-class communities is that they live in places where there are not many opportunities.’ On top of this, the problems in these areas are multi-generational, as they are still recovering from the demise of the manufacturing industry.
Goodwin argued that there are three answers to why white working class pupils are being left behind. First is to look at what is going on in schools, however this does not account for the cross-group variation. The second set of explanations looks at the individual students themselves and their cognitive abilities. The third, which Goodwin said goes the furthest, are cultural explanations; ‘what is it that is happening outside of the school environment, that is happening perhaps not only within the family but within society, that is sending these kids the message that higher education or pursuing further education is not for them?’ While it is natural to focus on institutions such as schools, as this is the easiest place to make changes, the problems usually begin outside of school.
The discussion then moved on to these issues outside of schools and within families. Major said that while white working class families did have aspirations, they did not see the education system as fulfilling those aspirations, with those communities not perceiving education as a vehicle for moving on in life. But, he also noted that we are not talking about one homogenous group, as it includes families in inner-city Sunderland and rural Devon; ‘the place and community in which you live has a profound impact on your aspirations and attitudes towards education, and we still do not know enough about that.’
The issues raised in this first half address many of the concerns in Schools North East’s Manifesto for North East Education published last year. Our top recommendation was to recognise regional context, in particular the issues of long term disadvantage. We also asked for a curriculum that was accessible to all students, and joined-up policy making that does not leave schools as solely responsible for all social issues. It is clear from this evidence session that consideration of these recommendations is crucial to addressing the issues of long-term disadvantage.
In the second half of the session, evidence was taken from Professor Becky Francis, Chief Executive of the EEF; Mary Curnock Cook OBE; and Dr Sam Baars from the Centre for Education and Youth.
Becky Francis opened the session in discussing the general situation, arguing that ‘persistent disadvantage does seem to be more responsible for attainment gaps than regional disparities, or even school quality or ethnicity’, pointing towards research undertaken by Stephen Gorard and Nadia Siddiqui at Durham University. The regional differences in attainment across the country can then be explained by where long-term disadvantage is concentrated.
Mary Curnock Cook reiterated what had been said in the first half of the session, that there is a strong statistical case that points towards white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds making poor progress, and have worse outcomes. She went on to discuss the issues of place in explaining why this might be with ethnic minority pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds concentrated in large cities such as London, with poverty often living next door to wealth. In contrast, ‘huge areas in the north-east or the south-west, for example, are characterised by higher levels of poverty, lower population density and are proportionately more White.’
Sam Baars confirmed this point, arguing that the reason we saw these differences between white working class pupils and other ethnicities was area-based; ‘my own research and other research has shown that there are some really interesting, really stark area-based inequalities in a lot of this stuff—school quality, educational outcomes and aspirations as well.’ However, he questioned ‘low aspiration’ based arguments, pointing towards research showing that ‘kids growing up in inner-urban areas of deprivation can be up to five times as likely to aspire to highly skilled jobs’. The problem, he said, was opportunity structures.
It is clear from this first session that there is a consensus that there is a growing gap between disadvantaged white pupils and their peers, and concerning the data shows that this gap is increasing. This is a hugely important issue for the North East due to the high numbers of white pupils from backgrounds with long term disadvantage. It is welcome then that the Education Select Committee is beginning these conversations, and attempting to uncover the cause of this gap, and Schools North East will continue to have this challenge as a key policy focus.