What to do with ‘white working-class’ underachievement? Framing ‘white working-class’ underachievement in post-Brexit Referendum England

Figures & data

Figure 1. GCSE performance by ethnic group, gender and FSM 2014–15 (adapted from Department for Education (DfE) 2016c).

Table 1. Overview of sensitising questions.

Table 2. summary of findings.

	Diagnosis	Prognosis	Voice	Intersectionality
Publication/ Questions	What is represented as the problem?Who is the problem supposed to affect? Who is responsible for the problem?	To which group will solutions be directed to? What do solutions entail? Who is responsible for solutions?	Which socio-political actors are referenced?	To what extent is recognition of interrelation between different dimensions considered? What representations are made?
Schools That Work for Everyone	Problem framed as an education system lacking sufficient good quality school places which inhibits social mobility. No real blame apportioned	External players provide support through knowledge transfer or access to facilities. Little responsibility is given to the state school system	Mainly government data providers are referenced and cited	Very limited consideration of intersectionality. No mention to groups other than the ‘just about managing’. Mainly viewed from an economic perspective.
AchievingEducational Excellence in Knowsley	Problem identified as ‘white working-class’ through double disadvantage of being poorer and white. Blame largely pointed at cultural aspects of ‘white working-class’	Recommendations wide in type and responsibility but one major proposed solution is establishing selective schools in exclusively ‘white working-class’ areas	Mixture of government data, institutional and academic papers	Ethnicity and class discussed a lot but ‘white working-class’ homogenised largely throughout, represented as having cultural characteristics that are disengaged with schooling. Very limited discussion on gender
Class differences: Ethnicity anddisadvantage	Wider range of problems addressed though main angle is the size in variations of performance on the basis of ethnicity, class and gender. Improvement in non-white ethnic groups vs ‘white working-class’ stagnation is a concern. Reasons include levels of aspiration, socio-economic inequalities and cultural norms	Separate recommendations for ‘disadvantaged white British pupils’ and other ‘poorly performing disadvantaged ethnic minority pupils’. Responsibility mainly directed to government	Mixture of government data, institutional and academic papers	Good level of analysis on intersectionality of gender with ethnicity and class.
Ethnicity, gender and social mobility	The report focuses on barriers to social mobility at different educational stages and upon entry into labour market in the UK. Study examines how combination of gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) shapes barriers faced by young people. Does not apportion blame.	Sets out recommendations for government, universities, schools and early years providers. Action recommended beyond education across labour market to redress obstacles different young people face in transition from education to employment.	Mixture of government data, institutional and academic papers	Good level of analysis on intersectionality of gender, ethnicity and class.

Figure 2. GCSE performance, whiteness and free school meals (adapted from Department for Education (DfE) 2016b, Department for Education (DfE) 2016c).

Department for Education (DfE). 2016c. Revised GCSE and Equivalent Results in England: 2014 to 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/revised-gcse-and-equivalent-results-in-england-2014-to-2015

 Google Scholar

Department for Education (DfE). 2016b. Schools, Pupils and Their Characteristics: January 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2016

 Google Scholar