Underachievement of white boys

GrannyGravy The issue with the grammar schools in your area is that they're not available everywhere and they not highly selective. They're not so selective as the grammar schools in Chelmsford and Colchester. Some of the pupils in them would be better off in a less academic environment. The local comp in my town usually achieves higher average results than the Southend grammar schools.

GrannyGravy13

To be fair, the media is full of BAME people telling its viewer about white privilege.

We have now got the likes of the Tates and others on social media telling boys to man up and take charge, which then leads on to endless programmes and documentary about male toxicity.

It is hard for a young white boy in the 21st century.

Some thrive with a cushion of a supportive family, a safe place to do school work and a healthy attitude. Many haven’t got these things that most of us would take for granted.

Basically some of these lads slip through various nets feel that nobody cares about them, there is nothing out in the big wide world for them unless they are an influencer, sports person or similar, education is not a priority.

Excellent comments.👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

JohnnyMo

Chocolatelovinggran

What role do parents play in this? There's lots on this thread about school teachers " see boys as a problem to be managed while the girls are taught" ( sweeping, judgemental criticism of a whole profession, at all?), sport, government keeping them down to provide soldiers ( any data to support this?), the only reference to families is to point to single parents.
Growstuff is right, there's a problem with underachievers from a certain demographic, which is worthy of some more thoughtful discussion.

Maybe with hindsight I should have said SOME female teachers, but I stand by that that some female teacher do have that attitude even if subconsciously.

As I pointed out towards the start EVERY other demographic which is underachieving gets targeted help, something growstuff has not addressed.

I didn't address it because it's not true. The only universal support in English schools is from Pupil Premium, which schools are free to spend as they wish. Unfortunately, schools are still under pressure to produce results for the data crunchers. After analysing their results, if they spot that a certain group is underachieving, it is very tempting to direct funding towards that group to keep Ofsted and the wonks in Whitehall happy.

growstuff

Personally, I think there should be an alternative curriculum from about the age of 14 (Year 9 or 10). I'm not in favour of the 11+ because it's too young and there have always been problems with it. However, by the age of about 14, it's fairly obvious which pupils are not going to be motivated by traditional exams. There should be an alternative curriculum with recognition of achievement in a range of non-traditional skills. I wouldn't target it at any particular demographic. In any case, each area is likely to have different needs, so I wouldn't give extra support specifically to white boys or black girls (or whatever). I would consider each individual pupil on his/her merits.

Blimey growstuff I am in total agreement with you.

I wouldn’t do away with grammar schools, but encouraging a 13+ test would be a good move forward.

(I know that at least one of our local’ish (is that even a word 🤷‍♀️) has a limited intake in year 9)

JohnnyMo

𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘚𝘶𝘯 24-𝘈𝘶𝘨-25 11:25:40
𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙨.

As I originally posted, there are targeted scheme to help girls

White working class girls still underachieve. It's a class/culture/income issue rather than gender. I suspect the thing is that these girls were never expected to have a reasonable job, so their loss isn't so noticeable.

Chocolatelovinggran

What role do parents play in this? There's lots on this thread about school teachers " see boys as a problem to be managed while the girls are taught" ( sweeping, judgemental criticism of a whole profession, at all?), sport, government keeping them down to provide soldiers ( any data to support this?), the only reference to families is to point to single parents.
Growstuff is right, there's a problem with underachievers from a certain demographic, which is worthy of some more thoughtful discussion.

Maybe with hindsight I should have said SOME female teachers, but I stand by that that some female teacher do have that attitude even if subconsciously.

As I pointed out towards the start EVERY other demographic which is underachieving gets targeted help, something growstuff has not addressed.

Personally, I think there should be an alternative curriculum from about the age of 14 (Year 9 or 10). I'm not in favour of the 11+ because it's too young and there have always been problems with it. However, by the age of about 14, it's fairly obvious which pupils are not going to be motivated by traditional exams. There should be an alternative curriculum with recognition of achievement in a range of non-traditional skills. I wouldn't target it at any particular demographic. In any case, each area is likely to have different needs, so I wouldn't give extra support specifically to white boys or black girls (or whatever). I would consider each individual pupil on his/her merits.

I despair of the British education system.
She has an MBA, and yet I have to correct some of her spelling and grammar on her WhatsApp messages

𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘚𝘶𝘯 24-𝘈𝘶𝘨-25 11:25:40
𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙨.

As I originally posted, there are targeted scheme to help girls

NotSpaghetti I know. 40% (I think) of English and maths GCSE entries are resits. Michael Gove introduced it a few years ago. Somehow or other he thought that pupils would eventually pass, which is deluded. I don't know whether people realise that the "pass" marks for GCSEs are manipulated so that more or less the same number pass each year. They're known as norm-referenced. Some pupils are destined to fail the exams - year after year.

I know somebody who was an NVQ assessor for health and social care. There were some trainees who could never progress because they couldn't pass the English exams (and they were English native speakers). It's been like this for years. The school system just does not suit about 30-40% of young people, which is an awful lot of people to throw on the scrap heap.

𝘉𝘢𝘣𝘴03 𝘚𝘶𝘯 24-𝘈𝘶𝘨-25 10:57:09
𝗜 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗴𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽𝗳𝘂𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗯𝗼𝘆𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗮 𝗯𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿.

That is part of the problem: for those who wish to ignore the problem can lump all white boys into a single group and pretend there isn't a problem.

growstuff one of the problems with apprenticeships today is that now the young people have to keep on retaking maths (abd English?) to complete.

My local garage where we take our cars had "the best lad ever to have come into a workshop" a few years ago. The owner said you only needed him to see something once and he could do it. He had magic hands for cars it seemed. He could see what needed to be done on similar (but different) jobs and was super keen coming to work really happy every day.
But he wasn't allowed to progress by the college without him having passed the written tests.
He couldn't do them.
He repeated a year I think to try to pass and I know my garage went to see the college and the youth's parents. He spoke to his MP.
In the end he couldn't do the apprenticeship.

My lovely garage refused to have any more trainees after that.
He was speaking about this lad again just a few weeks ago.
Something is wrong.

eazybee

I don't know the answer, but I do wonder if it is anything to do with the absence of fathers; role models?
Girls from poorer homes (frequently a single parent, usually mother) seem to achieve better without extra help.

Not much better, according to the stats.

growstuff

Before the National Curriculum was introduced, secondary schools had more flexibility. My first school was a genuine comprehensive in a semi-rural area. We had children whose parents were farm workers and some whose parents worked in higher education and other professional jobs.

We had an on-site farm, ran brick-laying courses and one course where they took motorbikes apart (and tried to put them together again). All that stopped in the late 80s. Now pupils are forced to resit maths and English until they pass. For some, I can't think of any better way of putting them off education.

We had a friend who taught in a comprehensive school many years ago, one which my DGC now attend.

It wasn't until our friend's funeral (he died at the age of 87) that I realised he had taught car mechanics at the school.
I asked DGC if they did anything like that 30 years on and the answer was No.

The nearest FE Colleges where they can go for such courses are at least 20 miles away, a bus ride and bus fares are not funded now by the LA.

growstuff

Before the National Curriculum was introduced, secondary schools had more flexibility. My first school was a genuine comprehensive in a semi-rural area. We had children whose parents were farm workers and some whose parents worked in higher education and other professional jobs.

We had an on-site farm, ran brick-laying courses and one course where they took motorbikes apart (and tried to put them together again). All that stopped in the late 80s. Now pupils are forced to resit maths and English until they pass. For some, I can't think of any better way of putting them off education.

Totally agree with this post growstuff

I moved from my Grammar School at the end of what was then called the year IV, my parents gave me the choice of travelling to my old school, travelling to the nearest grammar or going to the local co-ed comp, I chose the comp.

It was an eye opener for me, onsite farm, garage for mechanics, excellent sports and science facilities. Now the farm has gone as has the garage, they take local children but also have so called grammar streams which invites pupils outside the area to apply for via an in-house test.

It’s time for the education department to realise that not one size fits all when it comes to educating our young people, schools should be able to pick up on a pupils strengths and interests and help them accordingly. The rigid national curriculum is failing too many of our youngsters.

Replying to one of your earlier questions to me do I think Tate is the solution definitely not, he, his brother and his ilk are part of the problem.

I don't know the answer, but I do wonder if it is anything to do with the absence of fathers; role models?
Girls from poorer homes (frequently a single parent, usually mother) seem to achieve better without extra help.

Before the National Curriculum was introduced, secondary schools had more flexibility. My first school was a genuine comprehensive in a semi-rural area. We had children whose parents were farm workers and some whose parents worked in higher education and other professional jobs.

We had an on-site farm, ran brick-laying courses and one course where they took motorbikes apart (and tried to put them together again). All that stopped in the late 80s. Now pupils are forced to resit maths and English until they pass. For some, I can't think of any better way of putting them off education.

David49 Your post appeared while I was typing. I agree with you.

I think if you were to go back through the education threads on GN you would find that there is more discussion about grammar schools (or not), VAT on private schools and the alleged devaluing of exam grades than there is about the tail of underachievement, which has long been an issue in UK schools.

People care more about "stretching" the more able than they do about those who leave school with no meaningful qualification.

Many boys of all cultures lack family structure and male mentors, they turn to gangs for any kind of belonging, not always with criminal intent but just for unity. The current online world young people live in, surfing and playing games makes it worse, they don’t develope adult interpersonal skills.

Others have mentioned joining the army the camaraderie in army becoming their family therefore belonging, some girls too. I don’t think there is much problem with the top 25% in education they achieve their aims, the rest are a mixed bunch, many leave education at 18 with no skills at all, personal or practical to join the adult world

I think that to lump all white boys together is unhelpful, there are statistics that point towards black boys underachieving as well, but research like this is too broad a brush and can just cause division and rancour.
I think is far more likely to be down to educational opportunities inasmuch as white and black boys from middle class backgrounds probably are higher achievers than boys from lower class backgrounds.
State schools in inner city and deprived areas will obviously not have the same number of uni applications as a grammar school in a leafy suburban area.
Immigrant populations are in some cases more aspirational and children disciplined to believe education is a privilege not a right, also their survival may depend upon them striving to do better in what could be a hostile environment.

Chocolatelovinggran

What role do parents play in this? There's lots on this thread about school teachers " see boys as a problem to be managed while the girls are taught" ( sweeping, judgemental criticism of a whole profession, at all?), sport, government keeping them down to provide soldiers ( any data to support this?), the only reference to families is to point to single parents.
Growstuff is right, there's a problem with underachievers from a certain demographic, which is worthy of some more thoughtful discussion.

I'm looking forward to it

'All their teachers are probably women, who see them as a problem to be managed while the girls in the class are taught'

What rubbish. Having caught around England as a manager in different areas, in schools with good exam results and some not so good, I have never heard of or observed this.

Is there any evidence for your sweeping generalisation JohnnyMo?

sp casualty

When my children, boys, were at school '90s and early noughties the curriculum was quite feminised and the teachers were predominantly female, a minority made it quite clear, their preferred pupil would be female. Boys, do pick up on those undertones. I perceive boys know there is a certain amount of subliminal derision towards them and the whole spurious more recent "white privilege" doesn't help, Observe the grammar schools intake certainly around London these days, white boys will be a definite minority . White working class boys and black working class boys both often cry out for strong, positive male mentors, sometimes because their home lives lack a male parent and they have a disfunctional home life. So to fill that void they are increasingly turning to the pernicious Andrew Tate variety, where they will be warped by the derision of their female counterparts Unfortunately pornography has played a large part in that. Black boys from similar deprived backgrounds will often be influenced by grime and drill rappers whose lyrics talk about taking out rivals and putting those thoughts into deeds. It's a grim time for boys surrounded by all this nihilistic clap trap and now gaining the all important apprenticeships to lift them into some sort of future will be more difficult due to NI hikes. It's the first thing small to middling businesses are going to cut back on have already heard of one such casulty