Sutton Trust Report: White Working Class Boys From Poor Neighbourhoods Have 'Double Disadvantage'

Almost a third of white working class boys from poor neighbourhoods stay in education after their GCSEs, thanks to a "double disadvantage", a report has found. Just 29% of this group continue to study after taking their exams, due to a combination of low family income and geographic poverty, the Background to Success report found. This compares to nearly half of white working class boys living in more affluent areas, and more than two thirds of male teens from more advantaged families, the report published by the Sutton Trust revealed.

The research showed different background factors, such as neighbourhood, family income, and ethnicity, combined to reduce teenagers' chances of entering further education.
The report, conducted by Oxford University, found boys are "significantly" less likely to carry on with academic study than girls. Two thirds of girls take AS, A-levels or another qualification compared with 55% of all boys. The attainment gap between poorer girls and their richer peers is also slightly less marked for females; more than half of disadvantaged girls go on to further study compared with three-quarters of the non-disadvantaged group.

The Sutton Trust urged the government to consider the "double disadvantage" of young men ahead of George Osborne's spending review later this month. "[The report] lays bare the powerful influence of different aspects of a student's background in shaping their educational outcomes," the Trust said. "It illustrates how such factors combine to reduce a pupil's chance of entering further education. "The Trust would like to see.. continued support for the pupil premium for all disadvantaged pupils, including high achieving disadvantaged pupils."


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/11/sutton-trust-report-white-working-class-boys-double-disadvantage_n_8534614.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I've said before, a lot of times when we talk about racial inequity we should probably be talking about class inequity. Capitalist societies don't like to talk about that sort of thing, though, so we end up couching these issues in terms of race rather than class.

Have to agree there Ben, as nobody should face such inequalities

So where is the inequality? These boys have the chance to get further qualifications do they not?

Raggamuffin wrote:So where is the inequality? These boys have the chance to get further qualifications do they not?

An advantaged start, based off wealth, you need to read the study, its explains very well what has been explained many times. Parents from lower income families, are again generally less educated, so the child is not going to have as good teaching from the earliest ages. They are then already behind more advantaged children. Less well paid families also tend to work far more hours to earn ends meet, leaving less time with the children to help further thir growth. parents in this group are more likely to be suffering from stress and be single families, again thus having less time of interaction the child needs. It does not mean the parents are any less great at being parents, they are themselves coming from a similar situation where it is difficult to break out of the circle. There is many reasons, but as seen these are just basic ones.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've said before, a lot of times when we talk about racial inequity we should probably be talking about class inequity. Capitalist societies don't like to talk about that sort of thing, though, so we end up couching these issues in terms of race rather than class.

That's rather true actually

trouble is the progressive answer is not to "give" the disadvantaged the extra they need but to merely take away the advantage of those who have it.

equality in mediocrity....

I think that all anyone can do is provide legal equality, which these boys do have. Anything else is just State nannying really.

Lord Foul wrote:trouble is the progressive answer is not to "give" the disadvantaged the extra they need but to merely take away the advantage of those who have it.

equality in mediocrity....

You mean taking away education and knowledge from people?
The point is to bring them all up to the same level, not dumb down people

Poor are generally at many disadvantages priorate school.

My old man used to come and watch me play Rugby for our school and noticed big boys who should have been playing, he asked my headmaster why were they not playing and was told "they did not have any boots".
During the discussion he also found out some of the boys did not have a daddy IYKWIM.
He'd had a meeting with the headmaster and donated to a boot fund with other parents he rallied around to help, it was very successful.

So, poverty in the poor is defo poverty in ore ways than one..

Nowadays they don't dogames, sports like we used to.

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:trouble is the progressive answer is not to "give" the disadvantaged the extra they need but to merely take away the advantage of those who have it.

equality in mediocrity....

You mean taking away education and knowledge from people?
The point is to bring them all up to the same level, not dumb down people

No you plonker...I'm talking about taking away resouces and means....

"lets reallocate resources from school A (in a high earning suburb)
and give them to school B (in a scab on the arse of town sink estate)"

DESPITE the patently obvious fact that the parents of kids from school A have paid 3 times over anyway with massively high council taxes, whereas its likey that the parennts of kids from said sink estate have likely only contibuted to the local hash supply.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


You mean taking away education and knowledge from people?
The point is to bring them all up to the same level, not dumb down people

No you plonker...I'm talking about taking away resouces and means....

"lets reallocate resources from school A (in a high earning suburb)
and give them to school B (in a scab on the arse of town sink estate)"

DESPITE the patently obvious fact that the parents of kids from school A have paid 3 times over anyway with massively high council taxes, whereas its likey that the parennts of kids from said sink estate have likely only contibuted to the local hash supply.

Again dumb, add recources to make all equal, as clearly the better schools do well,. you make the worst schools up to the level of the better schoold. So no your view is ridiculous.
I am not botherted that people who worked hard, earn better, what is needed is the lower income people brought up to a far better level. . I find it also ridiculous to punish peope that do far better and deserve a good wage. Again if you look at the studies the people who are better off interact better with their children from the eaarliest of ages, because of the advanatges of money. Bringing everyone up to a level they can all have the better time to nuture children this way, is going to then bring everyone up to a near same equal status. Its obtaining that level where life is more comfortable, and not a continual struggle. So the money factor is only important at the lowest ends not the highest ends of the scale. The lowest have to be brought up to the level where people are confortable.

very good didge...so you pass politics 101

so now...where are you going to get those extra resources to "add" to the poorer schools???

and as for "the poor"...how you going to help them...I mean you are all for benefit cuts are you not...


I mean we now have the R/W wet dream dont we...

having wrung the sick and disabled dry they are now starting on "working time benefits"

oh...and jobs...and i mean REAL jobs are NOT increasing....

It could also be said that those who earn more money actually have less time with their children because they work long hours and/or have a lot of responsibility at work.

Lord Foul wrote:very good didge...so you pass politics 101

so now...where are you going to get those extra resources to "add" to the poorer schools???

and as for "the poor"...how you going to help them...I mean you are all for benefit cuts are you not...


I mean we now have the R/W wet dream dont we...

having wrung the sick and disabled dry they are now starting on "working time benefits"

How many times have I since agreed with you the cuts are wrong?
I can understand them short term, to get the country out of a mess, but not long term. They are cutting to much now and it will have the opposite effect

Again the best chances of trying to obtain children are advanatged from the starts, is that people are brought up to comfortable levels, as it is in the earliest stages of a childs life that matter how well they end up developing. If you do not resolve this, no matter how much you chop and change schools around, is not going to address the problem.

and all that whilst supporting spending AT LEAST 50, if not 100 BILLION on your orgy of migrant intake (I assume you agree with that labour idiot who suggests 10,000 a day....since you just "love" the migrant...even if he's just "a bit poor")

Raggamuffin wrote:It could also be said that those who earn more money actually have less time with their children because they work long hours and/or have a lot of responsibility at work.

That does not seem top be the case and one parent will have more time off because they can afford to in the early stages of a childs life.
Again its at the earliest stages of a childs life when they most need the closest interaction.

and what do those twats in the tories do...cut funding to "sure start schemes"

great....

but the money for "other things" ..i.e helping all those foreigners comes first....

Lord Foul wrote:and all that whilst supporting spending AT LEAST 50, if not 100 BILLION on your orgy of migrant intake (I assume you agree with that labour idiot who suggests 10,000 a day....since you just "love" the migrant...even if he's just "a bit poor")

We need migration and will continue to need this and we have to accomadate the infrustructure for this.
We should have a limit of around 400,000 to the usual 320,000 emigration

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It could also be said that those who earn more money actually have less time with their children because they work long hours and/or have a lot of responsibility at work.

That does not seem top be the case and one parent will have more time off because they can afford to in the early stages of a childs life.
Again its at the earliest stages of a childs life when they most need the closest interaction.

Well that depends on why they're well off doesn't it? If they're well off because both parents are out earning good money, they have less time to spend with their children than those on benefits.

Lord Foul wrote:and what do those twats in the tories do...cut funding to "sure start schemes"

great....

but the money for "other things" ..i.e helping all those foreigners comes first....

Er this is not the foreigners fault who help pay into the system, stop blaming them for policies they do not make

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


That does not seem top be the case and one parent will have more time off because they can afford to in the early stages of a childs life.
Again its at the earliest stages of a childs life when they most need the closest interaction.

Well that depends on why they're well off doesn't it? If they're well off because both parents are out earning good money, they have less time to spend with their children than those on benefits.

yes it does depend on the level of well off, hence my point on bringing lower wage people up to a more comfortable level

so how you going to find the money , as I have said before...UP FRONT" to pay for the cost of "accomodating" the infrastructure....its got to be paid for from somewhere....

The "eventual" input of the migrant (which it seems is now in doubt) is not relevent...since that will take upwards of 5 years to come "online"

let alone the ongoing costs...

and

refugees cost a LOT more than migrants


where you going to find the 6000 pound EACH....to settle these people?
plus the other on going costs
plus the otther extra support needed above and beyond what "our own " cost??

Its all very well saying we can do it....

please explain to the panel

exactly HOW?

after all ...apparantly we are still "skint"

unless of course yu agree that the cons are nothing but lying bastards that should be hung from the yard arm......

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and what do those twats in the tories do...cut funding to "sure start schemes"

great....

but the money for "other things" ..i.e helping all those foreigners comes first....

Er this is not the foreigners fault who help pay into the system, stop blaming them for policies they do not make

erm...where does what I say "blame" the foreigners?????

thats nothing but a political sleight of hand...

not providing for the worlds waifs and strays is not blaming them

its "not taking responsibility for them"

and there is NOTHING to say that we should take responsibility for them...at least NOT at a net COST to us....

It does not take 5 years at all, the impact is felt very much within the first year, again you seem obsessed with migrants who are needed as well as foreign students.
I am no economic genius, so I shall leave that to the experts to figure that one out, but many things are  achieveable.
Stop being so pessimistic, as it might help for a change.

Of course, people are assuming this is down to money, but it might not be the case. If someone is not earning much because they're too lazy to do so, they're going to be too lazy to encourage their children to do well at school as well.

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course, people are assuming this is down to money, but it might not be the case. If someone is not earning much because they're too lazy to do so, they're going to be too lazy to encourage their children to do well at school as well.

There is too much evidence that connects much of this to poverty rags, not everything but it does have a huge effect. Nobody is denying some are lazy, but that does not discount the fact poverty has a massive effect on how people are disadvantaged growing up

rubbish...and anyway YOU are talking of "proper" migrants, hoping no doubt to fudge the isssue that the 10,000 a day that this labour moron clucks about are refugees...not migrants...a totally different game

and...are you telling me that every migrant has a job within 1 year of landing here...AND whats more one that pays above the level that in work benefits are payable...becasue i dont beleive that for an instant...

also are you telling me that none of these "migrants" send a huge proportion of that money out of the country , home to family there.....which money is PERMANENTLY lost to the economy

for the first 10 yeasr migrants should have tax or benefits (if they dont pay enough tax) reduced pound for pound for the money they send back to their home country

If they can afford to send it there , clearly they dont need it, so it may as well go back into our economy....

Lord Foul wrote:rubbish...and anyway YOU are talking of "proper" migrants, hoping no doubt to fudge the isssue that the 10,000 a day that this labour moron clucks about are refugees...not migrants...a totally different game

and...are you telling me that every migrant has a job within 1 year of landing here...AND whats more one that pays above the level that in work benefits are payable...becasue i dont beleive that for an instant...

also are you telling me that none of these "migrants" send a huge proportion of that money out of the country , home to family there.....which money is PERMANENTLY lost to the economy

No its not rubbish Mr Grumpy.
Sorry but when you go into one with your, lets bash migrants times, when most come here to have a better life and actually benefit this country I just go on to switch off mode, because you ignore all the evidence they do bring. Like I said I would limit migration to the UK to 400,000 and with emigration from the Uk at around 320,000, this leaves an increase of around 80,000. Very much needed and maybe to small a number but to me the right balance. I do not care what people do with their money, they have earned it and its got naff all to do with you what they do with it. My father when in Canada sent half his money home to his parents, and he went to Canada at 14. Are you telling people now how they should manage the money they have earnt?
They still pay into the system and take far less out because the majority are young and generally healthy.

migrants ..one fish, controlable selectable (if you wish to) and generally not too bad

refugees (up to 3.6 million a year, is ok according to that labout type) is another kind of fish altogether

as an interesting aside...what is the demography of that 320,000 that are leaving each year??

anyone know?

Lord Foul wrote:migrants ..one fish, controlable selectable (if you wish to) and generally not too bad

refugees (up to 3.6 million a year, is ok according to that labout type) is another kind of fish altogether

I certainly did not agree with the numbers stated above of 3.6 million

No idea what is the demography of those leaving, but a number will be foreign students and people moving back like some who send money home to their families, because the rest of their family lives there.
Some will be British born of many different ethnic groups.
To be honest have no idea, but gues it is a mixture of many.

Right have to go Victor so have a good evening

and you

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that all anyone can do is provide legal equality, which these boys do have. Anything else is just State nannying really.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION...
Raggs Says eat cake peasants
Don't complain when the mob burns your house down Marie Antoinette 

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that all anyone can do is provide legal equality, which these boys do have. Anything else is just State nannying really.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION...
Raggs Says eat cake peasants
Don't complain when the mob burns your house down Marie Antoinette 

I would never tell anyone to eat cake - it's fattening.

Lord Foul wrote:as an interesting aside...what is the demography of that 320,000 that are leaving each year??

anyone know?

the ones with brains
we get a lots from the UK 

Can you now see what I was saying about losing good ones and gaining 'the others', because if they have a choice (and commonwealth citizenship does give choices)  they can go somewhere better.

You cant 'pick' because you're their second choice

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that all anyone can do is provide legal equality, which these boys do have. Anything else is just State nannying really.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION...
Raggs Says eat cake peasants
Don't complain when the mob burns your house down Marie Antoinette 

I would never tell anyone to eat cake - it's fattening.

good come back

they would be all those "anglo's" you so despise then veya....

Lord Foul wrote:they would be all those "anglo's" you so despise then veya....

Yeah Bloody immigrants  
actually the main 'Anglos' are 'shire boys' in Sydney and come from Sutherland shire(south east). they are the rivals to the Outer West, traditionally keeping the 'westie' down, over the years 'westie' has become every race on earth not just Irish and Welsh.
the joke is you have a Full blood Anglo Racist going "I'm Aussie because my great great great grandfather came here on a boat" than the Sundanese refugee from Blacktown (westie) saying  "I am Aussie because I came here on a boat"


but we get lots of everyone and often second-move immigrants.
Indian/Pakistani decent from UK are quite common.
there are several 'side doors' to Australia via the UK or New Zealand.


Westie Pride filmed in Blacktown.

Lord Foul wrote:they would be all those "anglo's" you so despise then veya....

this is super accurate

Lord Foul wrote:trouble is the progressive answer is not to "give" the disadvantaged the extra they need but to merely take away the advantage of those who have it.

equality in mediocrity....

Where do you get this bullshit?

Raggamuffin wrote:It could also be said that those who earn more money actually have less time with their children because they work long hours and/or have a lot of responsibility at work.

Even if that were the case, you're talking about punishing the children for the actions of their parents. We need to be working to raise the standards of education for all children, not scapegoat their parents and make the kids suffer for being born into the wrong families.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:trouble is the progressive answer is not to "give" the disadvantaged the extra they need but to merely take away the advantage of those who have it.

equality in mediocrity....

Where do you get this bullshit?

Because the way its practiced is as I said

"lets reallocate resources from school A (in a high earning suburb)
and give them to school B (in a scab on the arse of town sink estate)"

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:trouble is the progressive answer is not to "give" the disadvantaged the extra they need but to merely take away the advantage of those who have it.

equality in mediocrity....

Where do you get this bullshit?

Because the way its practiced is as I said

"lets reallocate resources from school A (in a high earning suburb)
and give them to school B (in a scab on the arse of town sink estate)"

Well, I'd advocate giving school B more resources that are diverted from some bullshit like corporate tax cuts, defense spending, etc.

But are you saying the children of school B don't deserve the same resources as school A gets? Why are the children of the rich more deserving of a quality education than the children of the poor?

If anything, the children of the poor need MORE help, not less.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Because the way its practiced is as I said

"lets reallocate resources from school A (in a high earning suburb)
and give them to school B (in a scab on the arse of town sink estate)"

Well, I'd advocate giving school B more resources that are diverted from some bullshit like corporate tax cuts, defense spending, etc.


Maybe YOU would, but thats NOT how it works in real life IS IT...we all know only too damn well that the only practical way the progressive lobby can acheive ANYTHING is to pull the top down, as opposed to building the bottom up

But are you saying the children of school B don't deserve the same resources as school A gets? Why are the children of the rich more deserving of a quality education than the children of the poor?

Of course not, In an IDEAL world all would get the same...but then we come to the "why bother excelling"  argument and the old chestnut about who should be paid most the surgeon or the dustman? or should they both get the same???

If anything, the children of the poor need MORE help, not less.

and that last line...when translated into ability as opposed to income levels resulted in "mixed ability teaching"...which NOW explains why todays A level students leave school actually knowing less than the O level students of MY generation.....

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Because the way its practiced is as I said

"lets reallocate resources from school A (in a high earning suburb)
and give them to school B (in a scab on the arse of town sink estate)"

Well, I'd advocate giving school B more resources that are diverted from some bullshit like corporate tax cuts, defense spending, etc.


Maybe YOU would, but thats NOT how it works in real life IS IT...we all know only too damn well that the only practical way the progressive lobby can acheive ANYTHING is to pull the top down, as opposed to building the bottom up

But are you saying the children of school B don't deserve the same resources as school A gets? Why are the children of the rich more deserving of a quality education than the children of the poor?

Of course not, In an IDEAL world all would get the same...but then we come to the "why bother excelling"  argument and the old chestnut about who should be paid most the surgeon or the dustman? or should they both get the same???

If anything, the children of the poor need MORE help, not less.

and that last line...when translated into ability as opposed to income levels resulted in "mixed ability teaching"...which NOW explains why todays A level students leave school actually knowing less than the O level students of MY generation.....

Yeah, thanks to the right wing, corporations get huge tax breaks and the military gets fat budgets while programs that benefit the people get to fight over the remaining scraps. It doesn't, however, have to be that way.

As far as the surgeon vs. the dustman, we're not talking about them, we're talking about their kids. The surgeon's kids don't deserve a better education than the dustman's simply because of what their fathers did.

Poor children, being far more likely to routinely experience things that interfere with the goal of educating them, need more attention than the children of people who can afford private tutors, who have secure homes and are far more likely to have stable lives.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

and that last line...when translated into ability as opposed to income levels resulted in "mixed ability teaching"...which NOW explains why todays A level students leave school actually knowing less than the O level students of MY generation.....

Yeah, thanks to the right wing, corporations get huge tax breaks and the military gets fat budgets while programs that benefit the people get to fight over the remaining scraps. It doesn't, however, have to be that way.

As far as the surgeon vs. the dustman, we're not talking about them, we're talking about their kids. The surgeon's kids don't deserve a better education than the dustman's simply because of what their fathers did.

Poor children, being far more likely to routinely experience things that interfere with the goal of educating them, need more attention than the children of people who can afford private tutors, who have secure homes and are far more likely to have stable lives.

you do live in a strange fantasy world Ben....afford private tutors????

ffs....


what about the bloke who "for instance" works as say a middle level engineer whos kids go to a good school and are very bright....

he cant afford a private tutor...so why rob his kids of the resources needed in that good school to provide for the kids of a "6 child multi father single parent " family....on some sink estate...

and my point about 2mixed ability has nothing to do with poor or otherwise


but again why "hold back the top 5% of acheivers to futiley try to uplift the bottom 5%?(who granted through no fault of their own, are never going to amount to much educationally wise becasue they simply cannot learn well)

60+% of teaching time spent of the bottom 5%

jeeze

what was wrong with the old "streaming system" eh


oh of course the progressives thought it "elitist" so they replaced it with the mess we have today

oh and I agree the bankes and other mega rich SHOULD be taxed of their reasonble contribution AND then made to pay it properly....

I am a big fan of whats earned here is taxed here....non of this hiding it off shore ..transferring it here there and everywhere...

EVERY penny earned here should be taxed at the given rate....here.....