Underachievement of White
Disadvantaged Pupils in
Birmingham
Karamat Iqbal
The Forward Partnership
www.forwardpartnership.org.uk
Report commissioned by Birmingham
LEA with funding from Birmingham
and Solihull local LSC
June 2005
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
Content
Introduction
Page
3
The national picture
3
The situation in Birmingham
5
The wider context for White underachievement
7
Education making a difference
9
Parental role in raising achievement
10
Responses to White underachievement
10
“They don’t mention us English”
10
Responses from Government agencies
12
Birmingham’s strategy on addressing underachievement
13
Implications of White underachievement for
community cohesion in Birmingham
15
Conclusion
17
Recommendations
18
References
20
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
2
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
Introduction
In general, underachievement is defined as a discrepancy between ability and
performance. However, no two people look at underachievement in the same
way or measure it using the same criteria. For the purposes of this report,
underachievement is seen in relative terms i.e. the difference between different
groups of pupils as shown in their GCSE results especially those achieving 5A*-C,
including those who do not achieve any such grades at all.
As a result of ethnic monitoring data currently available about the attainment
levels of a number of pupil groups, there is some concern that, relatively
speaking, White pupils on free school meals are underachieving. Within
Birmingham, where there is already a culture of taking a targeted approach to
addressing needs of underachieving groups, it was decided, through this paper,
to investigate further the situation of these pupils and place it within a broader
context.
The national picture
The first report which provided a synthesis of research evidence on
educational attainment according to race, class and gender was by Gillborn
and Mirza (2000). It presented attainment data for the period 1988-1997. In
contrast to most other commentators who use free school meals (FSM) for
this purpose, Gillborn and Mirza used the term manual to indicate
disadvantage. Their findings showed that after Black manual, White manual
were the lowest achieving group during the period covered.
According to the Social Exclusion Unit, in their recently published report,
Breaking the Cycle (2004), White boys on FSM who did not achieve any
GCSE passes in 2003, were “the largest of any group”, with boys on FSM
from Mixed and Black-Other backgrounds and White girls on FSM following
closely behind. The data (see Figure 1) shows the numbers, in terms of
ethnicity, who, according to the DfES, did not achieve any grades at all in
GCSE/GNVQ in 2003.
The extent of the problem was clearly stated in a speech by Rt. Hon Patricia
Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Cabinet Minister
for Women. On 12 May 2004, when launching the White Paper on the
Commission for Equality and Human Rights, she pointed out:
“We used to talk, for instance, of the educational disadvantage of the
Black and minority ethnic community. The reality, of course, is far
more complex. Take school results, on average boys and girls from
Chinese and Indian British families are doing better than anyone else.
White girls do better than White boys; middle class children better
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
3
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
than working class. Boys, especially, from African Caribbean and
particularly, working class Punjabi and Bengali families have far lower
attainments. But lowest of all, in those average test results, are White
working class boys.” (My underlining)
Figure 1 GCSE/GNVQ No passes
Table 60b: LEA achievements at GCSE/GNVQ in 2003, by ethnicity and gender
Ethnic group
Total no of
pupils
Pupils with
no passes
Bangladeshi
5387
231
Black
18383
1194
Indian
13,984
307
Mixed
10,145
618
Pakistani
13,369
601
White
471,711
25000
All figures were supplied by the DfES through their website:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000448/index.shtml
The author, in his then role as Lead Adviser for Equalities for Birmingham LEA
attended a conference, on 20 May 2004, entitled Raising Achievement: Towards
a whole school agenda. There was a presentation by Dr Maud Blair, from the
Aiming High Project, DfES, which included a slide on Deprivation, Ethnicity and
Achievement. This showed White British to be the lowest achieving group. Sadly,
there was neither comment nor discussion of this issue at the conference.
A quick glance at the data published on the DfES website would point out that
across the country there is a similar picture of underachievement by White
disadvantaged pupils. Yet, with very few exceptions, the problem does not seem
to have been acknowledged by LEAs or those who are appointed to address
underachievement.
The report Class Acts (2003), from the Commission on Race and Education at the
Association of London Government pointed out that:
“In a number of boroughs White European and White pupils underachieve
significantly when compared to other ethnic groups”
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
4
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
In a report entitled Underachievement of White working Class Pupils in
Camden Schools (2004), Professor Myers stated:
“White working class (i.e. pupils entitled to free school meals)
underachievement is becoming increasingly apparent as LEAs are
utilizing more sophisticated monitoring systems. In Camden’s case an
analysis of 2003 Key Stage results by ethnic group and FSM
entitlement showed a relatively low level of performance at each key
stage for this group of pupils and at GCSE (5+A*-C grades) it was the
lowest performing group”.
The evidence pointed out that this group of pupils also least benefited in
terms of value-added between KS2 and KS3.
The situation in Birmingham
Overall the performance by Birmingham pupils has been improving for a
number of years with the percentage of children achieving the benchmark five
or more GCSEs at A*- C having increased from 36% in 1998 to 50% in 2003.
Published in the same year, the value-added tables also recognised the city’s
huge improvements at Key Stage 4. The tables were further evidence of the
success of Birmingham when it reached the top 20 LEAs in this respect. Eight
of the local schools also featured in the top 30 schools nationally for valueadded between Key Stage 3 and GCSE.
There is, however, recognition within the Birmingham Education Plan 20042009 that certain groups of pupils are at “greater risk of underachieving”
(page 10). These are:

Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds

Those with special educational needs

Those looked after

Those with changes of school other than at normal school transfer
times

Those from some minority ethnic communities

Asylum seekers and refugees

Those with English as an additional language
The plan stated that within the above groups, “boys are at greater risk than
girls.” It recognized that “all schools will have some pupils in these groups
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
5
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
and for some nearly all their children will be from one or more of these
groups.”
Whilst some of the progress which has been made by the LEA has without a
doubt benefited all pupils and has helped to ‘close the equality gap’, there is
recognition that further attention needs to be paid to some groups of pupils
who are still underachieving compared to city averages. There is also
recognition that underachievement is not always inevitable as there are
many examples from schools of successful practice with pupils from
underachieving categories.
Similar to the national picture presented above, the situation in Birmingham
can best be summarised by looking at the number of pupils, in terms of
ethnicity, who, according to the DfES, did not achieve any grades at all in
GCSE/GNVQ in 2003 (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 GCSE/GNVQ Number of pupils within Birmingham who did not
achieve any grades at all
(Table 60b: LEA1 achievements at GCSE/GNVQ in 2003, by ethnicity and gender)
Ethnic group
Total no of
pupils
Pupils with
no passes
Bangladeshi
439
14
Black
993
56
Indian
888
16
Mixed
596
53
Pakistani
1979
89
White
6669
486
All figures were supplied by the DfES through their website:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000448/index.shtml
According to the data provided by the Birmingham LEA Research and
Statistics Unit, when looking at average attainment between 2001-2003,
after African Caribbean boys on FSM (668), the lowest achieving groups
were White boys (2190) and White girls (2182) on FSM. The situation is
particularly alarming when one looks at the actual numbers involved, shown
in brackets.
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
6
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
This underachievement by White disadvantaged pupils has been
acknowledged by the Birmingham Education Plan 2004-2009, albeit at the
back of the document, in Appendix 5. This provides a range of outcomes and
targets which indicates the current position of the various groups of pupils’
attainment in terms of % at age 16 achieving 5A*-C. The lowest achieving
group is Looked After children at 12%, followed by White disadvantaged
boys at 21% and White disadvantaged girls at 27%.
The wider context for White underachievement
To say that a school’s intake is everything is not an exaggeration. Sparkes (1999)
points out that on more than one occasion research into School Effectiveness has
shown that only about 8-15% of the attainment difference of their pupils is
accounted for by what the schools actually do, rather than by intake variations.
Sparkes also quotes another perspective from Thomas and Mortimore (1996),
who point out that between 70-75% of school variation in 16-year-old
attainment in GCSEs is explained by pupil intake factors.
The impact of the external environment on attainment is also made by Canaan
(2001) who used case studies to make the point that students do not come to
school with the same resources and therefore can not be expected to equally
take up and benefit from the opportunities offered there. She concluded that
middle class White students are ‘conditioned’ by their family situation from birth
in ways that give them more of the cultural/linguistic resources that schools
affirm. (These resources are referred to as social/cultural capital in the report by
Myers on Camden schools, mentioned earlier). By having more of these
cultural/linguistic resources and by not having to worry about their own and their
family’s survival, they can attend more fully to learning than poor students.
Conversely, working class students come to school with fewer of these resources
and the ‘know-how’ to gain the maximum benefit from the opportunities offered
there. The author also makes the point that teachers respond differently to
differently resourced students. They are more likely to deem as ‘bright’ those
with more middle class cultural/linguistic resources than those lacking such
resources.
The view has been supported by Lupton (2003). The author pointed out that
“poor neighbourhoods could be seen as systematically disadvantaging their
residents and isolating them from opportunity structures”. Lupton’s later research
(2004) provided further evidence for this. This was carried out in four schools
across the country: one each in the North-East, Midlands, London and SouthEast. Two of the schools were in a mainly White area whilst the others were in
inner city areas, one with a mainly Asian pupil population and the other with an
ethnically diverse population.
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
7
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
As all the schools were in disadvantaged areas, the cause of the difference
between them was seen to be their ethnic composition.
When looking at the importance of the local context, especially culture and
attitudes to learning, there were striking contrasts between the schools in White
areas and those in the inner city areas. In the former schools, the research
concluded that pupils received conflicting messages from their home and their
schools in terms of desirable behaviour. There were differences in terms of rules
which governed their manners towards adults and other children, their use of
language, aggression, acceptability illegal and adult (smoking, drinking, sex)
behaviours. This is best summed up by the experience of one school who were
trying to enforce a ban on gambling. They took a pupil home one day for playing
pitch and toss, a local gambling game. It was in the middle of the afternoon. On
arrival, they were greeted by a group of people sitting in their underwear,
drinking beer and playing poker. One of them, the father of the pupil concerned,
turned to the teacher and said: “What’s the problem”! The member of staff
decided to bring the child back to school because it was felt he would be better
off there than at home:
“And the father wasn’t being awkward. Because it was part of their life, he
simply could not understand why I didn’t want these kids gambling,”
(Headteacher)
In some cases, the differences were seen to arise from the failure of the family
to provide any constant set of rules as many of the children were under the
influence of different family members at different times, each with their own
behavioural expectations. The children also had a great deal of freedom and
unsupervised leisure.
According to the author, teachers in the White working class areas “alluded
specifically and frequently to negative or indifferent attitudes towards learning
and towards school, among both children and parents”. The parents were seen
“not to share the school’s orientation towards learning and in some cases were
seen as giving clear messages to children that their school work was
unimportant”. Inner city schools who, although, according to the criteria usually
applied, were more disadvantaged, “appeared to offer an environment that was
more conducive to running a teaching and learning organisation than the
disadvantaged, White schools where parents and pupils were more inclined to
see the instrumental value in education and to meet disciplinary expectations”.
The above view has been supported by the recent (unpublished) results of a
project carried out by Crozier G and which focussed on Bangladeshi and Pakistani
families in two towns in the North East of England. This points out that even
where the parents were unable to participate in their children’s education due,
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
8
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
for example to their lack of educational knowledge, the wider extended family
provided some of the necessary social capital for the pupils. This wider family is
often not there as a resource for White working class pupils.
Education making a difference
Research has pointed to links between poor educational achievement and
social exclusion. For example, the Social Exclusion Report, referred to earlier,
points out that the group of pupils who leave school without any
qualifications are “likely to be at risk of enduring or increased poverty in
future.” According to the report, people who lack qualifications or basic
skills “are at much greater risk of social exclusion in later life.” According to
the report, the converse is also true, that is, better education is more likely
to lead to higher earnings, lower chances of becoming unemployed, better
health and reduced crime.
Analysis by Sparkes (1999), using the Labour Force Survey, has shown that,
compared with a base of no qualifications, attainment of 1-4 GCSEs at grade
A-C increases earnings by 17%, 5 or more GCSEs at grade A-C increases
earnings by 41%, 2 or more A levels increases earnings by 67% and a
degree increases earnings by 111%.
According to the Home Office (2004), as primary providers of education to young
people, schools have a central role in implementing measures “to prevent actual
or potential offending amongst their pupils as well as improving their life
chances.” This is seen as a multi-faceted process in terms of:

The learning process - through the achievement of qualifications which
lead to greater opportunities later in life

The establishment of behavioural norms - through the imposition of
behavioural standards such as attendance, acceptable behaviour in class,
respect of others etc. This can be particularly crucial where family influences
may be absent or negative.

The provision of wider experience - such as teachers as positive role
models and providing the opportunity to widen experience and extend
individual world views
In terms of their impact on their communities, there is also some research
evidence that points to schools’ activities having important, though small scale
and local, effects on the regeneration of their communities (Crowther 2003).
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
9
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
Parental role in raising achievement
Just as parents can be a negative influence on their children, they can play a
helpful role in raising their children’s educational standards. Parental interest in
schooling can have a significant direct effect on children’s attainment. Research
carried out by Feinstein and Symons and quoted in Sparkes (1999), indicates
that such parental involvement can have a greater effect at age 16 than the
direct effect of social class variables. Their results showed that in mathematics
tests, the improvement of children between the ages of 11 and 16 whose
parents exhibited high levels of interest in education was 15% greater than that
of pupils whose parents exhibited no interest; in terms of reading attainment the
difference was 17%.
The same research is quoted by Parsons from the Campaign for Learning (2003).
In a submission to the DfES, it was stated that parents who do not or cannot
help their children learn risk them losing out on one-quarter of their potential
attainment. They also quoted Feinstein:
“Using very robust statistical techniques, we find that parental interest in
education is very much more important in explaining children’s academic
achievements than standard demographic measures, such as social class.”
The importance of parental involvement in their children’s learning is given
further support in the Desforges report for the DfES (2003). This points out
that:
“The most important finding from the point of view of this review is
that parental involvement in the form of ‘at-home good parenting’ has
a significant positive effect on children’s achievement and adjustment
even after all other factors shaping attainment have been taken out of
the equation”
Responses to White underachievement
It has proved somewhat difficult to identify projects and initiatives which
may exist in response to the underachievement of White disadvantaged
pupils. A number of people who were contacted during the research for this
report expressed some dis-ease at the mention of the word White.
“They don’t mention us English”
Although British society has been multi-racial for a long time, this issue has
been more noticeable during the last fifty years when we have had a more
significant presence of visible minorities within our society. Since the 70s we
have begun to talk about what this means for us as a society, as exemplified
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
10
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
by a number of books and journals. The philosophy was recently summed up
by Mathew Taylor, the then Director of the IPPR and quoted by Collins
(2004) in his unique biography of the White working class:
“Its creed assumes that human beings who are properly educated and
guided can live together harmoniously; preserving their own cultures
while respecting those of others”.
Sadly, instead of being inclusive, as it preached, multi-culturalism paid little
attention to White identity and came to be a euphemism for non-White
cultures and communities at the exclusion of the majority communities.
Perhaps the worst example of this was in a brochure, quoted in Collins, from
Southwark Council entitled Welcome to Southwark, which lists every ethnic
group under the sun with the exception of the English. This leads one of the
people who spoke to Collins to say “you wouldn’t think we’d ever existed
would ya?”
When the author of this report made a submission to the Birmingham
Stephen Lawrence Panel in 2000, it drew attention to the exclusion of White
people from race equality and multi-culturalism, especially within
Birmingham. It was suggested that when addressing equality and race
equality in particular one must not ignore the needs of the White population,
especially those who live in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
According to Collins (2004), a number of well known equality commentators
have also drawn attention to the lack of focus on White people within the
equality debate. The historian Stuart Hall has pointed out:
“If you are serious about a multi-cultural society, you would address
the sense of alienation of White working class, who have to be won
over to a new conception of themselves.”
The journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, quoted by Collins, drew attention to
this problem and pointed out:
“Our entire struggle against racism, its moral and ethical foundation,
stands to be discredited because we are not paying enough attention
to White victims of Black and Asian hatred”
It would seem that there are times when our education establishments are
much more likely to celebrate Eid and Diwali than Christmas. Little or no
research exists to tell us the impact such exclusion has on White pupils or
the White disadvantaged pupils who are further excluded from our
institutions because of their social class.
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
11
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
Not only has White identity not been included in the multi-cultural debate,
there are examples of the White working class in particular being given a
bad press; they seem to be considered a safe group to mock or attack as
summed up by the headline in the Sunday Times of 14 November 2004. In
an article entitled Everyone hates the White working class male, Rod Liddle
points out that times are not good for the White working class especially for
boys and men. He refers to the case of Colin Stagg who was accused of
murdering Rachel Nickell in 1993. After spending a year in prison the courts
decided that he had been ensnared by the police and freed him. Liddle
states that: “if Colin had been anything other than a rather thick chav, there
would have been protests at his appalling treatment”. He also refers to the
case of Harry Stanley who was shot dead by the police recently after they
suspected that the table leg he was carrying was a gun. According to the
journalist, if he had been anything other than a White working class male,
subsequent events would have taken a different course.
Perhaps times were never good for the White working class. George Bernard
Shaw is reported to have said that it was only possible to bring a working
man onto stage as an object of compassion.
According to Collins (2004):
“Throughout the 20th Century, on stage, film and television, the
working class…were frequently brought in to be the butt of jokes.
Often as the lazy beer swilling, fag smoking, chip eating, wife hating,
armchair reactionary…”
Response from Government agencies
During the research phase, the DfES and Ofsted, as key education agencies,
were contacted about information on projects and initiatives which are
specifically aimed at White underachievement in the hope that they would
point to a range of such projects.
It transpired that there is no one person or Strategy Unit responsible for
helping to address the underachievement of White pupils. It was suggested
that we refer to one of the DfES research reports. Unfortunately, this simply
confirmed the underachievement of White disadvantaged pupils. The report
pointed out that children eligible for free school meals were significantly less
likely to achieve 5 or more GCSEs at Grade A*-C, than children of the same
ethnic group not eligible for free school meals. The report further pointed
out that the disparity between children with and without FSM eligibility was
most pronounced for White pupils: only 22 percent of White children eligible
for free school meals achieved five or more GCSEs compared to 56 percent
of White children who are not eligible for free school meals:
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
12
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
“White and Black Caribbean groups with FSM have the lowest
proportion of all ethnic groups attaining five or more A*-C GCSEs (22
percent)”
The more recent research on Ethnicity and Education from the DfES (2005),
has stated that White British with FSM entitlement were, at 20%, the third
lowest group achieving 5+ A*-C GCSE/NVQs in 2003 (after the very small
groups of Travellers of Irish heritage and Gypsy/Romany pupils).
When Ofsted were approached for their help, they initially referred to the
Gillborn and Mirza report (Ofsted 2000), which mainly focussed on ethnic
minorities and a report (Ofsted 2002) which provided examples of good
practice for working with Black pupils. After some further prodding, they
provided the following response:
“Sorry, I can’t locate anything specific on this (White
underachievement in schools) area. David Bell did touch on this in his
access and achievement speech earlier this year but only
tangentially.”
Ofsted also suggested that the DfES should be contacted “who I think may
have started work in this area”
Later, it transpired that the DfES were carrying out a project in London
entitled KS3 White Working Class Boys’ Project. The project involves 5
London schools, one of which is a boys’ school. Dr John Taylor as a national
expert on boys’ writing has been employed to work alongside the schools.
The schools are currently focussing on the following:

Year 6-7 transfer

Improving writing in line with reading for a focus group of quietly underattaining Year 8 boys

Ways of ensuring that improvement in writing skills in English is
transferred to other subjects
Birmingham’s strategy on addressing underachievement
The City’s strategy and its results are best summed up by its most recent
Ofsted report which states:
Birmingham LEA stands “as an example to all others of what can be done
even in the most demanding of urban environments” Ofsted inspection
report 10 April.
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
13
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
The report highlighted a number of different initiatives which were in place
within Birmingham with the aim of raising the achievement of groups
identified as under-achieving.
In order to formally state its commitment to raising achievement of its pupils and
encourage a coherent response to needs, the Council’s Cabinet approved two
achievement action plans, one for Asian and one for African Caribbean pupils.
These were produced in partnership with a number of key local organizations.
The plans analyse underachievement as taking place

On a group basis: some groups of pupils are more likely to underachieve
than others.

On an area basis: pupils in some parts of the city are more likely to
underachieve than pupils in other areas leading to underachievement
being concentrated in particular areas of the City.

On a systemic basis: the education system is not always as effective as
it might be in meeting the needs of some learners. As an example, it is
stated that the curriculum does not always take account of the heritage,
cultures and concerns of minority ethnic groups and the teaching
workforce often does not reflect the ethnic make up of the pupils in the
City’s schools.
Although the work in this context has been going on for a number of years,
this is the first time the action plans have been adopted by the Council.
Within a culture of mainstreaming where everyone helps to address issues of
equalities and needs of under-achieving groups, the plans are intended to
help address a range of areas which were considered to be critical in making
a difference to raising the achievement of pupils in question. These include:

Schools - leadership; teaching and learning; curriculum

Community - partnership with schools; work of community
organisations; role of parents

Young people - their views; attendance; behaviour and attitude to
learning

Racism - addressing the negatives; promoting the positives; work
with teachers; preparing pupils for a life in a diverse society and
interdependent world
In order to progress the action plans, the LEA has established two
Achievement Groups, one for Asian heritage pupils and the other for African
Caribbean pupils. They meet once each term in one of the LEA good practice
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
14
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
schools and have active involvement from schools, LEA staff and community
organisations who have an interest in education.
Recently, the LEA’s Advisory and Support Service has also set up a White
Achievement Group. Unlike the other two groups, mentioned above, this group
does not have any non-education members and consists solely of senior staff
from a number of schools which have a significant White population.
Nevertheless, this is a unique initiative which provides a forum for the schools
concerned to work in partnership. Schools are grouped together in threes and
fours within the primary and secondary categories and have begun to identify
their needs and establish ways of helping each other.
Implications of White underachievement for community cohesion in
Birmingham
It is interesting to note that in the light of the disturbances in some of the
northern towns and cities, the Home Office have recently published Community
Cohesion Standards for schools. This is in clear recognition of the central role
schools can, and often do, play in helping to create harmony and respect
between groups. In this context, the report from the Home Office Community
Cohesion Panel (2004), under Educational Underachievement stated:
“The Group found that a major issue for community cohesion arises from
the continuing educational disadvantage faced by Black African-Caribbean
and White working class pupils - boys in particular”
In the context of community cohesion and good race relations, a few years ago
when many of our northern towns and cities were experiencing racial strife, it
was proudly announced by senior Birmingham officials that they had been
fortunate not to have experienced such troubles. However, it needs to be
remembered that whilst Birmingham had not experienced such troubles, some of
those causing trouble in the northern towns were actually its citizens as
evidenced by the appearance of a group of people in front of Oldham
magistrates; majority of whom gave Birmingham as their address notably
Erdington and Bromford (The Guardian June 19, 2001)
In order to understand the nature of the problem facing Birmingham schools,
one need only to look at the election support for the British National Party or the
National Front who are well known for their opposition to a racially diverse
society. Wards of the City where, during the municipal elections in 2004, these
parties fielded candidates and received a significant level of support are listed
below (In the wards of Kingstanding and Sheldon, both parties fielded
candidates). It is likely that some of the people who provided such support to
these parties are parents of the children in the local schools.
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
15
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
Ward
No of votes




















786
976
881
793
683
1420
1002
994 + 639
1102
1090
1515
733
978
1301+514
899
1339
639
668
852
947
Bartley Green
Billesley
Brandwood
Erdington
Hall green
Hodge Hill
Kings Norton
Kingstanding
Longbridge
Nortfield
Oscott
Quinton
Shard End
Sheldon
South Yardley
Stechford/Yardley North
Stockland Green
Sutton Vesey
Tyburn
Weoley
While proportionately these parties did not do particularly well, their support in
the actual numbers of votes they received was quite significant. Furthermore, for
every person who actually voted for such parties there are probably many more
who have some sympathy for them. In the context of this report, these wards
contain many of the schools where there are serious levels of White
underachievement.
Conclusion
It is clear that nationally there is an extremely high level of
underachievement amongst White disadvantaged pupils i.e. those eligible for
free school meals. Although when compared to other ethnic groups, the
situation of White pupils does not seem proportionately as bad, the
seriousness of the problem becomes clear when one considers the absolute
numbers of White pupils who leave school with few or no qualifications. It is
also clear that by raising the attainment levels of the pupils concerned, it
would make a massive impact on raising general attainment levels both
nationally and locally in places such as Birmingham.
While the problem is obvious, both from the data produced by the DfES and
statements in key documents and from senior government figures, it is clear
that little targeted action is being taken in response. There appear to be no
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
16
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
strategies (from the DfES) to speak of nor examples of good practice
documents (from Ofsted). Furthermore, there appears to be some
discomfort in talking about the White community for fear that it might be
seen as racist.
Part of the problem lies in categorisation. Often the White category includes
all the pupils, middle class as well as those from disadvantaged
backgrounds. This often leads one to conclude that there is nothing to be
concerned about. This is similar to how in the past the Asian category used
to disguise the underachievement of Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils and
helped to create the false impression that there was no problem facing these
sub-groups.
Another problem is that the White disadvantaged constituency often lacks
effective spokespeople to draw attention to their plight. In spite of the
extent of the problem and little action being taken, there is hardly a single
voice being raised about this tragic state of affairs from anywhere, locally or
nationally, sometime with the sad exception of the extreme Right who
purport to represent this constituency. The problems of White
underachievement deserve the attention of all key education bodies and are
not to be ignored just because no one is demanding that action should be
taken.
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
17
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
Recommendations
The following recommendations are offered for action in order to help address
the underachievement of White disadvantaged pupils, with particular reference
to Birmingham:
1. Acknowledgement of the problem
Sub-divide the White ethnic category in all circumstances in order to highlight the
low achievement of the pupils concerned as well as the disadvantaged position of
the wider community
2. Need for strategy
The DfES should develop an appropriately resourced national strategy to address
the underachievement. This should then be supplemented by strategies at the
local LSC and authority level.
The response should be proportionate to the need in terms of both the level of
underachievement as well as the numbers of pupils affected. Birmingham City
Council should take the matter up with the Innovations Unit at the DfES. The
City Council should also provide wider leadership in order to support any
initiatives which are instigated in this respect
3. Acknowledgement and celebration of White ethnicity
Take steps to treat White as an ethnic group in the same way as ethnic
minorities are treated- such as in the multi-cultural curriculum, celebration of
White identity and so on, in order to provide space for White pupils in our
schools and give them confidence to proudly assert their identity without being
seen as racists
4. What works
Identify at the national as well as local level examples of effective practice in
addressing White underachievement. This could be in the form of an Ofsted
‘good practice’ publication which is supplemented at the local level.
5. Community cohesion
Produce a properly resourced strategy on community cohesion in order to help
schools implement the Home Office Community Cohesion standards and to
recognise the centrality of underachievement to this area
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
18
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
6. White achievement action plan and group
Produce at the local Birmingham level an action plan, modelled on those which
have been produced in response to Asian and African Caribbean
underachievement.
The participation of the wider community in the White Achievement Group
should also be encouraged.
7. Role of parents and the wider local community
Find new ways to engage parents and the wider community into the work of
schools. This could include people such as church leaders, youth workers and
anyone else who is active in the community or cares for its well-being. Steps
should be taken to build the capacity of such people and agencies in order to
help enhance their contribution.
8. Seminars and workshops
Instigate a debate, locally and nationally, concerning the level of White
underachievement and its implications for the future of our multi-cultural society
in order to help to address questions such as:
 Is underachievement temporary or on going?
 Is underachievement subject specific or general?
 What factors contribute to underachievement?
 Why are some schools bucking the trend?
 How can a partnership approach be taken to address underachievement in
order to involve all stakeholders?
 What joined-up strategies are needed to address underachievement?
 What factors enable resilient pupils to do well in spite of their situation
and how can such resilience be developed and supported amongst more
children?
9. Development of social and cultural capital
Identify and allocate additional resources to enable schools to provide further
opportunities for the development of such capital by White disadvantaged pupils
10.
Collaboration
Encourage collaboration between LEAs, between the LEA and schools; between
schools and within schools
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
19
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
References
Birmingham LEA: Education Plan 2004-2009. Birmingham 2004
Canaan J, Haunting Assumptions of "Ability": How Working Class and Ethnic
Minority Students Signify Academic Failure, University of Central England 2001
Collins, M, The likes of us- a biography of the White working class, Granta 2004
Commission on Race and Education: Class Acts, Association of London
Government 2003
Crowther, D et al: How schools can contribute to area regeneration, the Policy
Press 2003
Desforges, C and Abouchaar A, The impact of parental involvement, parental
support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment, DfES 2003
Department for Education and Skills: Minority ethnic attainment and participation
in education and training Research Topic Paper RTP01-03
Department for Education and Skills: Ethnicity and Education; the evidence on
minority ethnic pupils Research Topic Paper RTP01-05
Gillborn D, Mirza, HS: Educational Inequality, University of London 2000
Home Office, The role of education in enhancing life chances and preventing
offending Crown Copyright 2004
Home Office The End of Parallel Lives? The report of the Community Cohesion
Panel, 2004
Lupton, R, Neighborhood effects: can we measure them and does it matter,
CASE 2003
Lupton, R, Schools in disadvantaged areas: recognizing context and raising
quality, CASE 2004
Myers, K: Underachievement of White working Class Pupils in Camden
Schools, Camden Borough Council 2004
Parsons S, Give your child a better chance, Campaign for Learning 2003
Patricia Hewitt: Equality and Human Rights in the 21st Century.
www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/equality/project/cehr_launch_speech.doc
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
20
Underachievement of White Disadvantaged pupils in Birmingham
Social Exclusion Unit: Breaking the Cycle, ODPM 2004
Sparkes J, Schools, Education and Social Exclusion, quoting Feinstein L and
Symons J Attainment in secondary schools, CASE 1999
Sparkes J, Schools, Education and Social Exclusion, quoting Reynolds, D et al:
School effectiveness and school improvement in the UK and Thomas, S and
Mortimore, P: Comparison of value added models for secondary school
effectiveness CASE 1999
Karamat Iqbal, The Forward Partnership June 2005
21