“Parents, even if their income is low, can help young people to stay in school and gain some qualifications if they are interested in their child’s progress, show that they believe their child is capable of succeeding and wish her/him to do so” (Bartley 2006)

“Parents in deprived families are less likely to be involved in their children’s education. Of particular importance is the provision of a stimulating home learning environment, which is found less often in deprived contexts” (DCSF 2009b)

“Young people who perceived their parents to be monitoring their activities had higher levels of achievement” (Wilson 2009)

It has been pointed out that parents can make a major difference to their children’s education (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003). Firstly, this can involve ‘at home’ parenting i.e. provision of a secure and stable environment, parent-child discussion, good models of constructive social and educational values and high aspirations. Secondly, in relation to home-school links, this can involve contact with school to share information, participation in school events and participation in the work of the school including governance.

White working class parental involvement is not rocket science. There is plenty of good practice which needs to be replicated. For example, government’s own National Strategies has produced case studies (2009) which recorded that “all the schools worked hard to develop positive relationships with parents/carers”. Desforges and Abouchaar have also pointed out that:

According to Strand (2007), White young people were the least likely to have paid-for private tuition and least likely for their parents to know their child’s whereabouts. He also points out that parents were most likely to report quarrels with their child more than once a week which meant that whatever social capital the parents had was not transferred to the children (Coleman (1988).

Evans (2007) agrees that working class parents are committed to education of their children and want them to do well but don’t always know how to help in the process. “For example, children may regularly be told to ‘go and pick up a book!’ but parents aren’t necessarily likely to sit down with their children to show them how to read and enjoy it ..”. They often also lack the confidence to critically engage with the school if they disagree with something the school is doing. Unlike middle class parents they are more likely to look up the teachers as having superior knowledge. “Many parents left the child’s education to the school “(Demie and Lewis 2010)

Lott (2001) presents a depressing picture about how poorer parents are treated by the education system and the barriers they face in relation to their contact with schools.

Lareau (1989) also reported that schools established home-school liaison arrangements based on middle class norms, knowledge and expectations, and interpreted parental non-participation as a lack of interest in education rather than as a deficit of cultural capital.

Both Lott and Lareau based their research on American schools. It is tempting to think the picture is a lot better in the UK though I have my doubts. What is the situation in your school? Are there hard-to-reach parents or is yours a hard-to-reach school for working class parents? Are there working class parents in your school community who face some of the barriers and problems highlighted above?

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]

A recent study from Bristol University (Burgess and Greaves 2009) into teacher assessment outlined how young people are disadvantaged by teacher stereotyping. Although the focus of the study was mainly on ethnic minority young people, it also found the White working class young people equally suffer from low teacher expectations. Reay found teachers treating students very differently on the basis of their social class. “For example, over the course of four weeks’ observation the middle class students were given almost twice the amount of positive feedback provided to working class students” (2006).

This confirmed previous research which had pointed out that teacher attitudes, assumptions and behaviours which were influenced by pupils’ socioeconomic background were disadvantageous for pupils from deprived backgrounds” (DCSF 2009b). This compounded the disadvantage for these pupils which resulted from being placed in low ability groups which had poor quality teaching (DCSF 2009a).

The above was also confirmed by Gazeley and Dunne whose research pointed out that “teachers hold stereotypical views and attitudes about pupils and their parents which favoured the middle class …and blame underachievement on the pupils’ social class”.

They also found when teachers referred to a pupil’s home; they made greater proportion of positive references about pupils identified as middle class:

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]

But the White families, nothing binds them, some are cousins I suppose but they are not seeking anybody out, I can’t think of anything that would bind them together (Demie and Lewis 2010)

In the Caribbean community there is an ethos of hard work, with Church and music providing a strong focal point for families. Whereas the White I probably have nothing but the pub…there is no pride in the White community, no strong sense of a cultural identity. (Demie and Lewis 2010)

There has been on-going debate about whether neighbourhood disadvantages have an adverse effect on educational achievement. A number of area based policy initiatives were implemented in the recent past which were based on the assumption that this was indeed the case: Health, Education and Employment Action Zones, Excellence in Cities, Sure Start and New Deal for Communities. Also in recognition of this, it has been argued that “both school-level and wider interventions are needed to close the gap in educational attainment” (Lupton 2003).

In explaining how the ‘neighbourhood effect’ works, Ainsworth (2002) has pointed to collective socialisation as a process which has by far the most significant impact on young people. Children living in advantaged areas are more likely to have modelled for them value for education, adherence to school norms and hard work. On the other hand in neighbourhoods (and families) where many adults do not work life can become “incoherent” for young people because what they see in their community outside of school does not complement what school may talk about in terms of values such as ‘work for a living’ or hard work leading to success. Instead, the ‘oppositional’ nature of the messages they get in the outside world may actually undermine what the school says.

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]

A study of internet access amongst children, by Ofcom, pointed out the important role such access plays in children’s education. It pointed out that by far the highest category of internet usage (75%) amongst 12-15 year olds was for school related work. The study also pointed out the disadvantage suffered by poorer children as only 31% of such children i.e. those in C2DE socioeconomic groups do not have internet access at home and rely on schools and friends for such access, while only 12% of children in ABC1 socioeconomic group do so (2007).

A recent report from Becta (2008) highlighted some of the benefits for children of having home internet access which goes beyond simply being able to do their homework.

Social exclusion caused by lack of internet access

According to Communities and Local Government (2008), those most deprived socially are also most likely to lack access to internet access. “Three out of four of those ‘broadly’ socially excluded lack a meaningful engagement with the internet”. In addition, they were the group categorised as ‘deeply socially excluded’ whose lack of internet access is even greater. They account for some 10 % of the UK population.

Another study into broadband adoption acknowledged that while such access was increasingly a prerequisite for social and economic inclusion, “limited availability, poor quality service, hardware costs, hidden fees and billing transparency” were major issues for low income communities (SSRC 2010). The report went onto point out the critical role played by ‘third spaces’ such as libraries who provide a safety net for access and as providers of training and task based assistance for their communities.

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]

At a general level, home environment in poorer families can have an adverse effect on education in a variety of ways. “Homes which are overcrowded, cold or in general poor condition can affect education through lack of quiet space for study, disturbed sleep and a general negative influence on emotional well-being” (DCSF 2009b)

Overcrowding can have an adverse impact on education, “directly through a lack of space to do homework and in other more indirect ways such as illness which can result from such overcrowding” (ODPM 2004).

Sutton et al (2007) interviewed 42 children in order to understand their lives. 19 of these were referred to as estate children (the term was chosen by the children themselves); all of whom were White. The other 23, private, children attended a fee paying independent school; 20 were White and 3 were from ethnic minority groups. Although both groups of children viewed education as one of the most important aspects of their lives, their actual experience of education was very different. One way this showed up was in the length of their learning day.

They found that the private school children “had long school days (typically 9.00 am to 6.00pm; some stayed at school until after 6pm), put a greater emphasis on homework and were involved in a wide variety of after-school clubs and activities”. In contrast the estate children had “shorter school days (typically 9.00 am to 3.30 pm), were not as focussed on their homework and were involved in fewer after-school clubs and activities”. This is also confirmed by other research.

Lareau (2003), provides many examples of middle class parents who ‘supplement’ their children’s education through paid-for activities as well as through the many conversations they have with them and teach them knowledge, skills or particular way of seeing the world. Evans (2007) makes a similar point about middle class children whose “every minute of their spare time inside and outside of schools (is) filled with structured activities oriented towards learning valuable skills in art, music, sport and drama and so on”.

Free time- organised activities: Sutton et al (2007) in their study of poverty found that the estate (the term chosen by the poor children to define themselves) children took part in fewer organised activities than the private children and could not always afford to take part in them. “Their ability to travel to and from activities was also limited by cost and lack of transport. By contrast, the private children took part in a wide range of activities organised by the school and their parents”. Compared to the estate children, “for private children their free time retains an emphasis on learning”.

The challenge for school is clearly what opportunities to provide and how for young people whose parents are less well off; to compensate for what their parents cannot provide.

To ensure the cost of activities does not act as a barrier for participation of the most disadvantaged pupils, the extended schools subsidy was being rolled out during 2009. The aim of this was to enable the most disadvantaged young people to participate in activities of their choosing. Unfortunately, as distribution decisions were left to local areas, a number were taking the easy option of dividing the money equally across their authorities instead, as was intended to happen, targeting inversely according to the level of disadvantage.

Benefits of education outside the classroom

It is well known that in order to gain the maximum benefit from their education, young people need to form good relationships with their teachers and fellow pupils. For this, they need well developed interpersonal skills and understanding. However, often these skills are developed outside of the school through participation in activities and programmes. Sadly, this is where poorer children miss out as they don’t have as many opportunities for such participation. Therefore, this calls for compensatory measures so that these essential skills for life in school and beyond could be provided in other ways. Otherwise, the young people in question are unlikely to achieve their full potential in school and go on failing to benefit from many opportunities in life generally.

Ofsted have stressed the importance of education outside the classroom (2008). They point out that it leads to “improved outcomes…including better achievement, standards, motivation, personal development and behaviour. It also provides extra depth to pupils’ learning and experience”. They confirmed that many schools relied on contributions from parents and carers to meet the costs of residential and other visits and had given very little thought to alternative ways of financing them. In the schools visited there was a long tradition of asking parents to make a considerable financial contribution to learning outside the classroom, for example, by covering transport costs and entrance fees.

Chowdry et al et al (2009) points out that “young people who participate in positive activities at age 14 tend to have higher test scores at Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 and are significantly less likely to be NEET at age 17 than young people who do not participate in positive activities”.

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]

“There was a significant boost to progress for pupils who reported they completed homework on three, four or five evenings a week, relative to those who reported they never completed homework. The more homework done, the greater the impact on their progress.” (Strand 2008) He goes onto point out that “homework was one of the two, out of the eight, variables with by far the largest impact on attainment; academic self-concept was the other one.” …. “White I pupils were one of the two ethnic groups who reported doing the least amount of homework.” (2008)

Wiggins et al (2009) pointed out there are clear associations between parental occupation and educational level and children reading for pleasure. In relation to homework, they found that there are disparities in setting and doing of such work as well as doing extra work. For example, 23% children of unskilled parents reported that homework was not set compared to only 12% for children of professional parents; 49% of the former did all the work set compared to 61% of the latter. In addition, 9% of the former did extra work compared to 13% of the latter. “This suggests that the children of less educated parents are much more likely to be either in classes or schools that do not set much homework (almost half as much). Overall it shows that children whose parents are from higher socioeconomic groups …are more likely to complete all of their homework.. “

It has been recognised by the DCSF that children from deprived backgrounds may find it harder than their peers to complete their homework (2009b). “This can be due to lack of space for study; lack of educational resources in the home such as books, encyclopaedias and other reference material; lack of internet access and parents inability to help with the homework tasks”. Elsewhere, it has been recognised that “parents want to help their children succeed, but do not necessarily know the best way to do this” (DCSF 2009a)

Jonathan Milne pointed out in his TES article (1.2. 2008): “homework falls victim to the economic divide”. This was based on a survey by Kirkland-Rowell which gathered views of more than 75,000 parents whose children attended either a school in the most deprived 20 per cent of neighbourhoods, or one in the 20 per cent of most prosperous neighbourhoods. It showed that on average, pupils in the wealthier areas did 5.66 hours a week of homework, while those in poor areas did 4.35 hours. The gap was most pronounced at Year 11 – the GCSE year – when the better- off pupils did two hours more than those from poorer backgrounds. Those extra two hours added up to 78 hours a year, equivalent to three 25-hour school weeks. In both rich and poor areas, girls did at least an hour more homework than the boys in their classes.

In another article in the TES on homework, (3 July, 2009), it was pointed out that many of the homework tasks were assumed to need resources of time, space and basic materials such as textbooks, pens, pencils and paper which are often not available in poor homes.

Lindy Barclay, an experienced practitioner with White working class young people has also drawn attention to the life outside school of such children. In an article in the TES (9 October, 2009) she drew attention to what goes on during the summer holidays for many of the working class children.

“During the summer, some of the teenagers on our estate live a kind of feral existence. They roam wild and, in some instances, lawless. No rules about being in at night, no restrictions on who they hang around with, no prohibitions on drinking and smoking. They are generally nice kids, but live with few boundaries”.

She does mention the few lucky ones whose time is taken up with hobbies “- fishing, skateboarding, swapping computer games, playing football every day in the park –“ as well as the small “minority whose parents are able to afford to take them on holiday, about 8 per cent according to a recent survey of our students”.

Barclay then draws out the implications of this. “Those students who experience a very different life outside of school are often the most challenging”. Demie and Lewis (2010) point out the life many working class young people lead out of school: “The children are out on the streets in their uniforms after school. The mothers don’t do anything with their children, they don’t go anywhere as a family. There is no family structure.”

Wiggins et al (2009) point out that poorer children are also less likely to: Borrow books from library other than school; Be asked at home almost every day about what their time at school; Attend daytime clubs once a week; Attend after-school clubs once a week; Read for pleasure or Do maths and English homework.

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]

“Growing numbers of working class young men in British cities ..will find themselves numbered among the ‘unexceptionally disadvantaged’” (McDowell 2003). It is likely that the vast majority of these are White.

According to the National Audit Office (2008), Year 11 students who were FSM were “twice as likely to be NEET AT 16/17 as those who did not have free school meals”. Using figures for 2007, it was found that while percentage of families where the 16/17 year old was NEET was 7, for families in receipt of FSM the figure was 16. The report also stated that “a higher proportion of White young people are NEET than is seen among most ethnic minority group”.

The above report stated that although the parents strongly wanted their children to have a better education than they had received themselves they tended to have less social capital. This meant that the parents were less likely to be confident in their abilities to advise their children about educational choices. Many of the families were found to be headed by a female lone-parent. The families of NEET young people also tended to report poorer home relationships.

Implications of being NEET

The National Audit Office (2008) has pointed out that being NEET is a major predictor of unemployment at age 21 and is strongly correlated with early parenthood. 71% of women who experience a significant spell of NEET (6 months or more between 16 and 18) are parents by the age of 21 compared with 16% of other young women.

Being NEET has clear financial cost implications for the individual and society at large. According to Godfrey et al (2002), in research conducted for the DES, “life time cost of young people NEET at 16 to 18 was £7 billion in resource costs and £8.1 billion in public finance costs.

According to the Prince’s Trust (2007), “for 16 to 24 year olds, the productivity loss to the economy from youth unemployment has been estimated at £10 million every year in addition to approximately £20 million each week in Jobseeker’s allowance for 18 to 24 year olds”.

The picture painted by the Bow Group (2007) was even more depressing. They pointed out that “out of the proportion of those earning less than £6.50 per hour, 53% have no qualifications”. They pointed out that the impact of educational failure is “dramatic and lasting” through extremely limited life chances and behaviour which presents major social problems. They found 71% of young people NEET had admitted to using illegal drugs compared with 45% who were in education, employment or training while 29% of NEETs had committed a crime compared with only 11% non-NEETs.

Consequently, for these young people being full members of community will be difficult. Many will have few prospects in the job market. Not surprisingly, a proportion will become single parents, involved in drugs and crime and possibly end up in prison. “Low achievement is a misfortune for the individuals concerned and a considerable social problem. The costs to society of not addressing the issues..are high”. (Cassen and Kingdon 2007)

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]

According to Ofsted (2010), “there is a clear link between attendance and achievement since if pupils are not attending school they will be unable to access the opportunities available to them.”

Young people from poorer backgrounds are significantly more likely to play truant than those from richer families at both age 14 and 16, i.e. 24% from the former group compared to 8% from the latter. Young people from the former group are also twice as likely to engage in anti-social activity as opposed to the latter group i.e. 41% compared to 21% (Chowdry et al 2009)

The National Audit Office (2008) found that on average, secondary schools with very high levels of FSM pupils had seven days more absence per pupil per year than secondary schools with average levels of FSM pupils.

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]

It has to be recognised that disadvantaged pupils are not only to be found in disadvantaged schools. According to DCSF (2009), about half of FSM pupils are to be found in the third of schools who have the greatest concentration of disadvantage while the other half are spread across the other two thirds of schools.

This lack of concentration is a particular issue for white working class pupils compared to other ethnic groups. According to DCSF (2009b), 70% Bangladeshi pupils and 60% of Pakistani pupils live in 20% most deprived postcodes; only 20% of white British pupils do so. The contrast between the ethnic groups is even greater when we look at those who live in the 10% most deprived postcode areas. While the figures for Bangladeshi pupils is 45%, for Pakistani pupils 40%, it is only 10% for white pupils.

Being a minority in a school can additionally disadvantage white working class pupils. According to Sue Hackman, Chief Adviser on School Standards: “Over and above the usual problems faced by pupils who are disadvantaged these smaller minorities lose out even further. Their needs are less likely to be specifically identified and met and inadvertently their culture and expectations are swamped by those of their more affluent peers” (DCSF 2010b).

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]

22 months: the problems start soon after birth. According to the DCSF, “the social class gap in attainment opens up by 22 months” and “an FSM child has around 3 times worse odds of achieving good school outcomes than a non-FSM child at every critical point in their education after age 5” (2009a).

7-36 months: Risley and Hart researched into the early life of American children by looking at the upbringing of 42 new babies from a wide range of social class backgrounds. They concluded that by the end of their observation, some babies had heard over 33 million words while others only 10 million.

“This was our most surprising discovery: that the size of the differences between families in the amount of talk to babies is so enormous- and that those differences add up to massive advantages or disadvantages for children in language experience long before they start school”

Age 3: DCSF point out that “at age three, children from lower income households have lower vocabulary scores” and that this continues through the various Key stages. For example, compared to FSM pupils, non-FSM pupils have three times the odds of achieving the expected level in reading and writing at Key Stage 1 in English; 3.5 times the odds of achieving the expected level in science at Key Stage 3 and 3.2 odds of achieving an A*-C grade in maths.

Research from Australia (Smart et al 2008) provides evidence that working class children suffer from poor school readiness. The effect of this stays with them throughout their schooling and leads to them underachieving at the point of school leaving. I wonder how many of our NEET (not in education, employment or training) young people have a similarly poor start in life!

More discouragement

In the context of this paper, it is necessary to point out that the poorer and disadvantaged families were the ones who not only had spoken fewer words but were also more likely to speak discouragement to their children. Risley and Hart (2006) found that some babies had heard over 500 thousand affirmative statements about their actions from their parents while others would have heard less than 60 thousand.

The film Precious provides a depressing tale of an obese black teenager who is pregnant with a second child by her own father while living in poverty with her violent mother. What stood out for one reviewer was not the film’s ferocity and sexual abuse, but the mother’s constant haranguing; she told her daughter that she would never succeed in anything beyond claiming welfare. “She did not just chip away at her self-esteem, she bulldozed it to dust” (Perry 2010).

[box type=”info”] Click here if you are interested in buying a copy of the main report from where this extract has been taken or the sister paper on Resilience and Self-efficacy [/box]