The education system is failing white working class boys. It’s not news and it’s not peculiar to the UK – different studies across the wider world have been saying it in academic language for some time. But Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, made headlines with her clearly expressed views this week.
Perhaps not surprisingly The Telegraph chose to emphasise the negative, leading with what could be interpreted as a jibe at misguided liberal policies:
White working class boys are being left behind because of the ‘negative impact’ of a focus on ethnic minorities and women, a member of Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet has said. The Telegraph
What she actually said is set in the context of an extraordinary interview with The Spectator’s Fraser Nelson. The shadow education secretary, who left school, pregnant, at 16, is driven by a personal mission to tackle a dysfunctional system which perpetuates inequality. “For Rayner,” writes Nelson, “this is the point about welfare: failure to support people leads to greater economic and social cost later. She’s almost evangelical while talking about it, presenting her life story as proof.”
So the comment about white working class boys has to be understood in the context of a wider social inequity and political failure.
‘They have not been able to adapt,’ says Rayner of white working class boys. ‘Culturally, we are not telling them that they need to learn and they need to aspire. They are under the impression that they don’t need to push themselves, in the way that disadvantaged groups had to before.’ The Spectator
That rings a bell.
Is it all girls and all boys?
Once again it’s well worth digging through the archives of the David Hume Institute for evidence. And we don’t have to dig very far. Here’s the Irish academic, Professor Emer Smyth of the Economic & Social Research Institute, Dublin, talking to a room full of (if they’ll excuse me saying so) middle class achievers in Edinburgh last year.
The talk, Gender and education: why do girls do better than boys? at the Royal Society of Edinburgh in April 2017, also presented extra evidence on Scotland gathered by Linda Croxford and Cathy Howieson. And although Emer Smyth’s main focus was on the apparently increasing gender gap she also provides some fascinating and troubling insight into the persistent underachievement of working class boys.
It’s an enlightening talk and worth listening to in full. Nothing in education is simple. Beware easy conclusions and stereotypes. Laddishness is a popular explanation for boys (of any social class) lagging behind girls in school but it’s far from the whole answer. Beware single solutions (there’s no evidence that boys respond better to comics than novels). Above all, beware sweeping generalisations about gender.
“Is it all girls and all boys?” asks Emer Smyth. “Research shows that it’s really certain groups of boys that fare badly rather than all boys.” With the decline in industrial jobs, working class boys in particular don’t see themselves as having an identifiable future in the local community. They have less reason to invest in education.
In other words, says the academic, “It’s misdirected to be putting all the attention on ‘failing boys’ because the scale of gender difference is much less than in terms of class or ethnicity.”
Boys bad, girls good?
The evidence for that is shown in a series of slides; some intriguing, some startlingly stark. There’s graphic evidence of girls surging ahead of boys in reading from an early age. And note how working class girls are doing better than middle class boys! There’s the growing reminder that working class boys (colour not specified) are being left far behind.
Emer Smyth also warns of the tendency to see ‘boys bad, girls good’. Picking on boys for acting out in the classroom is likely to be counterproductive, especially for disadvantaged boys. But it’s not all about what happens in the classroom. Perhaps one of the most startling slides is the one that shows the impact of after-school activities.
Pay more policy attention to the provision of out of school learning especially for more disadvantaged groups of boys – a) to find an activity that will involve them but b) to overcome the economic barrier that excludes many of them. Emer Smyth
Outside school, girls are far more likely than boys to engage in reading for pleasure. They are also more likely to take part in music, dance and drama. Middle class parents are far more likely than working class parents to have the time and money to ensure that they do. But the studies show that working class girls also take part in creative activities outside the classroom with a positive pay-off both at school and in their personal development.
Policy and practice
No single, simple solutions then. It’s the quality of teaching and the school climate that provides the best chances for both girls and boys. But it’s also how each school relates to the world around it. Emer Smyth’s presentation ends with a brief but powerful section on policy and practice which could provide essential ammunition for Angela Rayner south of the border – and for John Swinney in Scotland too. Social equity – not gender – should be the guiding principle.
Given that the poorest outcomes are for working class boys we have to see gender and social equity as inter-related. Any policy to help the disadvantaged must acknowledge that is often the most disadvantaged boys: Emer Smyth
[See and hear also Social Mobility and Poverty in Scotland an extract of the newly topical presentation on Elite Scotland by Alan Milburn who recently resigned from the Commission on Social Mobility and Child Poverty. In his 2015 talk for the David Hume Institute he also comments on the urgent need to invest in teachers, schools and extra curricular activities for the benefit of the most disadvantaged students in Scotland.]
Featured image by Tim Ellis, Benson Community School CC By-NC 2.0
florian albert says
‘It’s the quality of teaching and the school climate that provides the best chances for both boys and girls.’
To repeat a point I have made previously, if you judge by outcomes, boys and girls in prosperous areas are getting far, far better chances than those in deprived areas. (There may be a handful of schools across Scotland which buck this trend no more.)
This has been clear since the publication of Standard/Higher Grade results in the early 1990s.
The disheartening thing is how little has been done to alter this state of affairs. For once, the phrase, a national scandal, is accurate.
lynn oliver says
The belief boys should be strong allows aggressive treatment from infancy so they will be tough. There is less verbal interaction support for fear of coddling. This creates high layers of average stress for boys. These layers remain in the mind taking away real mental energy from academics so they will have to work harder to receive the same mental reward. This treatment creates emotional distance of others. It creates lags in communication girls are given daily. The high stress creates activity for stress relief not genetics. This creates higher muscle tension which hurts handwriting motivation. The effect with false genetic models creates more failure and hopelessness. To make it tougher boys are given love honor feelings of self-worth only on condition of achievement. This was designed to keep Male esteem low and be willing to give their lives in war for love honor from society. Males not achieving are given ridicule and discipline to make them try harder. Support is not given for fear of coddling. Many boys falling behind turn their attention to sports and video games for small measures of love honor not received in school. The belief boys should be strong and false belief in genetics create denial of the harsh treatment which is creating the low academics low esteem and other problems for boys. This is not about more openness from boys; it is about society allowing aggressive treatment from infancy so boys feel much wariness toward parents teachers who freely use aggressive treatment for any sign of weakness. This is condoned by society. This problem is affecting all male children but the lower the socioeconomic bracket and time in lower areas the more amplified the treatment given male children by parents teachers.
As girls we are given much support and care by parents teachers peers. As girls we are treated better and so enjoy support from society. Since we as girls are given by differential treatment much mental social/emotional support verbal interaction and care this creates the opposite outcome for girls when compared with boys. We receive love honor simply for being girls. This creates all of the good things. We have lower average stress for ease of learning. We enjoy much freedom of expression from much protection by society. We enjoy lower muscle tension for ease in writing motivation to write. We enjoy much positive trust/communication from parents teachers and support for perceived weaknesses. We are reaping a bonanza in the information age. Now with girls and women taking over many areas of society we enjoy more lavishing of love honor from society while boys and men are now failing more and are given more ridicule and abuse by society. Mind you this is now coming from girls and women using our still protected freedoms of expression and more with false feelings of superiority.
Taking Parents Seriously says
Boys develop later than girls, and they’re comparing themselves to girls from the start of school, so they know they fall short. Age 4, in primary 1, my son wanted to hide his learner’s journal, saying “it’s rubbish”. Insisting on boys and girls starting school at the same age, regardless of their development, builds into the system gender discrimination against boys. The limiting of deferrals (for financial reasons?) will only exacerbate the attainment gap. http://www.upstart.scot/unready-at-four-ready-at-seven/
lynn oliver says
Here we need to seriously ask “how much the differential treatment” given boys in terms of more aggressive, less supportive treatment, less verbal interaction, creating higher average stress, more activity, higher muscle tension hurting handwriting/motivation, along with the combination of higher average stress (hurting ability to perform abstract areas such as reading requiring many areas of thought) improper pace/intensity flowing from higher average stress hurting thinking, reflection time hurting reading motivation; and much lower social vocabulary stemming from a combination of much less, positive verbal interaction and much more social/emotional distance from more fear, anxiety from the more aggressive treatment. All of which can have a real effect on development, motivation, and success in school, now also the information age. As we go down the socioeconomic ladder this creates much more aggressive treatment allowed and much less knowledge/skills/support given for fear of coddling boys. As girls we receive the more proper treatment from infancy through adulthood.
Mark Stevens says
WOW Lynn, I know this is years out of date , but I totally agree. Yet I’m sure in the past boys were treated this way. Boys tend to work better in a competitive environments. This seems lacking now.
My hand writing is poor, for the first 3 years at junior school I was treated as an idiot. My work was untidy my overall mark for those 3 years was “C”.
In the 4th year I had a male teacher who did not just write on the board for us to copy. He engaged with us. Maps, pictures and objects.
Near the end of the year this idiot got the highest score in the geography , history and science tests. We had never had tests before, so the slow boy went from a “C” to an “A-“.
If this continues, I pity the state of society in 30 years. Intelligent women unable or unwilling to settle with resentful men unintelligent men, who are intimidated by these “super women”.
This will lead to the dumbing down of humanity.
Men are people to!
Em says
What a lot of absolute drivel. I am a woman who grew up in the deprived town of Blackpool and went to a comprehensive school because they were all that existed there. My parents could not afford to send me to public school.
Boys and girls at my school got the same tuition from the same teachers. Girls at the school were disadvantaged because they were not allowed to study subjects like technical drawing or computer science. They were made to do needlework and cooking classes instead. The other curriculum subjects were taught in mixed classes. So NO preferential treatment for girls, and none for me.
I saw education as a way of improving my life and skills from a very young age. I worked hard enough to get into the top academic grade and stay there. Some of the boys did too. So no difference there. I left school with 9 O levels including A grades. This is the result of a work hard attitude at school. Some boys adopted the same attitude and got similar results. I have since gone on to gain four A levels, two degrees, a postgraduate diploma and a masters degree. These include a qualification in Psychology and a research qualification.
Social class is nothing to do with academic ability. Not if you adopt the right mindset and make an effort. All the pathetic excuses that are being trotted out in order to explain away the poor performance of some working class boys in school are not helping. They may, indeed, be a part of the problem. They have become a facade to hide behind.
Girls from economically depressed areas are just as deprived as boys. We get no preferential treatment. We have no better prospects than the boys. Instead, our prospects may be WORSE. Stereotypes suggeste we are expected to achieve little more than pregnancy and having kids, often when we are not even married. The age old stereotype of low class women is a housewife or single mother. How is that a positive outcome?
Maybe some low class girls have worked out that the best way to improve their lives is to decide on working hard enough to get good grades in education. They can then have a chance of getting a better deal in life by getting a decent job instead of just being a housewife stuck in a marriage to a low paid man. Besides, college or university attendance allows you to mix in better social circles. So, you elevate yourself via the people you may make contact with. You can also learn more new skills and change your behaviour and ideology.
None of this is impossible for working class boys. They just have to make the effort instead of hiding behind excuses. Perhaps girls are more motivated and mature than boys at an early age. They are clearly using this to their advantage. And why not? Men have had the privilege of being treated as sole breadwinners for far too long. They have become complacent as a result. Girls work hard to prove their worth in a patriarchal society. They have left the boys who have been making no effort far behind.