Underachievement in Education by White Working Class Children - Education Committee Contents

3  Factors that may contribute to white working class underachievement

48.  We received evidence on a wide range of factors that may contribute to white working class underachievement. Some of these related to the home environment, while others were connected with in-school practices. A much broader third category included wider social policies and engagement with the community. This chapter gives an overview of what witnesses suggested were possible causes of, or contributors to, white working class underachievement.

Family and home factors

49.  The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) argued that home and family influences on underachievement were particularly significant because young people spend the majority of their lives outside of school.[59] Witnesses described factors within this category in terms of aspirations, expectations, access to social capital, parental engagement, time spent doing homework, use of tutors, and parenting skills. The Minister held similar views:

    Many of the problems with low attainment in school are due to factors outside the school gate: parental support, or lack of it; parental aspirations; poverty in the home environment; poor housing; and lack of experience of life [...].[60]


50.  One of the more frequently discussed home factors was the role of aspirations, but there was disagreement on whether white working class children had low aspirations and whether this caused or explained low achievement.

51.  The DfE quoted research that found that aspirations and expectations vary according to pupils' socio-economic backgrounds, with pupils from deprived backgrounds being less likely to hold high aspirations for their futures.[61] Professor Steve Strand echoed this, highlighting significant differences in educational aspirations according to socio-economic status, based on large-scale quantitative evidence.[62] He argued that the level of aspirations can be interpreted as a measure of engagement with schooling, and a reflection of how well other factors (such as the curriculum) meet the needs of these pupils.

52.  Leicester City Council told us that "In parts of Leicester the white working class culture is characterised by low aspirations and negative attitudes towards education".[63] David Jones, a headteacher in Bradford, agreed that parental expectations were important and felt that the lack of expectation did not come from schools.[64] Vic Goddard, a secondary headteacher in Essex, argued that:

    Students spend 18% to 19% of their adolescence in schools. If you want to ask where the biggest influence can come on their aspirations and their expectations in life, that is the answer. They spend four times as long at home or outside of school as they do in school. From that point of view, where are you going to make the biggest impact quickest? It is great if you could tackle parenting quicker, but obviously that is not an easy fix, whereas throwing money at schools and making me responsible for it is.[65]

53.  Conversely, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation felt that low aspirations were not a key cause of lower attainment among white British children from low income backgrounds, and suggested that aspirations were actually very high across all social groups.[66] The Foundation argued instead that the difference between parents and children from richer and poorer backgrounds was the strength of their belief that they would be able to achieve such goals.[67]

54.  The Future Leaders Trust argued that "One of the solutions to improve the educational outcomes and attainment of white working class students is to raise their aspirations".[68] Others pointed out that even if low aspirations were found to exist, a correlation between this and low performance did not mean that raising aspirations would be sufficient; a 2012 report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded that interventions to raise aspirations had no effect on educational attainment.[69] Professor Stephen Gorard (Professor of Education and Public Policy, Durham University) described attitudes and aspirations as "a red herring":

    I do not think we have enough evidence that it cashes out into improvements in attainment […] What you have are high correlations […] It does not seem that raising aspiration in itself makes a difference. You need to raise competence in order to make an actual difference to attainment, and if you raise the competence then the attitudes go with it.[70]

Jenny North (Director of Policy and Strategy, Impetus—The Private Equity Foundation) agreed:

    We are all fascinated with the idea that there might be something to do with aspiration within the family background that leads to attainment, but when you look at the literature, while there is quite a lot of correlation between aspiration and attainment, they have tried to find causality and they just cannot.[71]

55.  Sir Michael Wilshaw attributed the underachievement of poor white children to a "poverty of expectation", and in particular the low expectations of others:

    Poverty of expectation bears harder on educational achievement than material poverty, hard though that can be. And these expectations start at home. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds very often have high ambitions, especially when they're young. But the odds against achieving them can worsen with age. All too often there comes a point at which expectations shrink. They don't see their elder siblings or friends going to university, so they think it's not for them. Or no-one in their household is in paid work, so they don't expect to get a job. But where the family is supportive and demanding then in my experience the child is much more likely to succeed [...] the job of schools is made so much easier, or so much harder, by the expectations that families have for their children. So as a society we have to create a culture of much higher expectations for young people, both in our homes and in our schools.[72]

56.  A distinction can also be drawn between "aspirations" in a general sense and specifically educational aspirations. While witnesses were keen to emphasise that all young people had high aspirations, evidence from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in Education (LSYPE) suggests that a 14 year-old's answers to "do you want to continue in Full Time Education after age 16?" are strongly associated with socio-economic status.[73] This does not necessarily mean that working class children have low aspirations, but they are significantly less likely to see schooling as instrumental to achieving them.


57.  Several witnesses argued that a lack of "social capital" was more significant than a lack of aspiration. Professor Becky Francis told us that:

    [...] there is a lot of evidence that working-class families have high aspirations. What they do not have is the information and the understanding as to how you might mobilise that aspiration effectively for outcomes for your children. Money makes a big difference here [...] but also understanding the rules of the game.[74]

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's view was that "impact comes not from changing parents' attitudes or aspirations, but rather from giving parents better information and access to appropriate support and advice".[75] Dr Ruth McLellan (Southampton Solent University) drew on information from her doctoral thesis on white working class boys to argue that "disadvantaged families had high aspirations, however their immediate social networks had little educational experience. This directly impacted on the amount of educational social capital resource available within the network to help mobilise aspirations, which in turn raised motivation for attainment".[76]


58.  ASCL told us that parental engagement was a particular issue for white working class children, and that "Schools report that white working class families are often the hardest to draw into the life of the school and to engage with their children's learning".[77] Conversely, NASUWT told us that "Evidence challenges the assumption that working class families do not value education and are reluctant to engage in their child's education".[78]

59.  A NIACE report on Family Learning[79] quoted research showing that parental involvement in school was "more than four times as important as socio-economic class in influencing the academic performance of young people aged 16".[80] In a similar vein, the Minister drew on the Department for Children Schools and Families' 2010 report on identifying components of attainment gaps[81] to argue that parental engagement was the third most important factor in educational underachievement:

    We know, from this work that was done in 2010, that if you take the top factors that explain the differences in attainment, the first couple are fairly predictable. They are income and material deprivation and SEN status. I do not think those would really surprise anybody. Then, behind that, we have parental engagement as the third factor, and parental employment status will obviously link to income issues but not completely. There is parental background, and we have, lower down the ranking, pupil aspirations. That appears to suggest that getting parents onside and getting parents to be very aspirational are factors that seem to be important for the ethnic community.[82]


60.  The Sutton Trust recently reported that 40% of children miss out on "the parenting needed to succeed in life", and that "securely attached children are more resilient to poverty, family instability, parental stress and depression. Boys growing up in poverty are two and a half times less likely to display behaviour problems at school if they formed secure attachments with parents in their early years".[83]

61.  In its 2013 state of the nation report, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission noted that there was currently a lack of focus on parenting, and was concerned that "not enough is being done to help parents to parent".[84]

62.  Loic Menzies also pointed to research into the effect of language used in the home:

    We know, for example, the huge differences in the amount of language that is used by parents of children in low socio-economic groups, and the language they use in higher socio-economic groups. We know the difference in the type of language they are using. We know that by shifting that, we can have a big impact on attainment.[85]

Owen Jones (Author, Chavs) described this as a difference in "cultural capital": "A middle class child will be exposed to broader vocabulary from the earliest age, will be surrounded by books, and is more likely to be read to by parents".[86] David Jones, a primary school headteacher in Bradford, told us about his school's "Time to talk" initiative, which involved providing activities for children and parents to do together as a way to tackle this difference in cultural capital:

    The important thing is that you sit face-to-face with your children and do these things, and that you speak with them. We found that that engaged the parents and that they then came to the phonics classes. It was a very small step, but a practical approach, and we found that it paid some dividends.[87]

63.  The evidence we heard related to how the amount of language and breadth of vocabulary used in the home in the early years varies by socio-economic status. It is not clear whether this is a particular issue in white working class homes as opposed to other ethnic groups. We believe that this issue is critical. Further research in this area is needed, given the importance of oracy to child development.

64.  We asked the Minister whether there was scope for including parenting skills in the national curriculum, particularly given that some young people may have children very soon after leaving school. The Minister dismissed this idea:

    Barely a day passes at the DfE without somebody asking us to add a new compulsory subject to the curriculum [...] schools should accept that they have a wider responsibility than the core academic curriculum. The main policy challenge is to get all young people with the right qualifications so that they do not end up just having children as a better alternative to going into a dead-end job or having no job at all.[88]

School factors

Can schools make a difference?

65.  A report for the Institute for Public Policy Research in 2012 explored the role that schools can play in tackling the general link between educational achievement and family income, and noted that academic studies generally had found that "about 20 per cent of variability in a pupil's achievement is attributable to school-level factors, with around 80 per cent attributable to pupil-level factors".[89] Similarly, ASCL felt that the problem was "not of schools' making [...] they cannot solve it by themselves",[90] and Ofsted told us that "[…] factors beyond the school gates and in the communities where pupils live can have a detrimental impact on their achievement. Schools can do much to improve outcomes for disadvantaged pupils but only so much".[91] On the other hand, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation struck a more optimistic note from a similar figure: "Schools do make a difference to outcomes. While students' social and economic circumstances are the most important factors explaining their educational results, we find that about 14% of the incidence of low achievement is attributable to school quality".[92] We recognise the challenges caused by social problems but we saw in Figure 6 how dramatic the impact of schools can be on economically disadvantaged pupils.[93]


66.  Several submissions suggested that the perceived relevance of the curriculum was a factor in disengagement with schooling by white working class children. Professor Diane Reay told us that the Government should:

    Develop ways of offering the white working classes subjects they want to learn, introducing a greater degree of choice and voluntarism into the curriculum so that the white working classes no longer feel schools offer them nothing they can see as relevant to their lives.[94]

In oral evidence Dr Chris Wood (Her Majesty's Inspector) explained that:

    The most successful schools make sure that the curriculum is really well-suited to those individuals. What does that mean in practice? What it means in practice is it is built around their needs and their interests, but it is underpinned by a really good grounding in literacy and numeracy, particularly in terms of early reading.[95]

Professor Becky Francis echoed this by calling for "flex" within a school's curriculum so that students could "pursue subjects for which they have a passion".[96] In contrast, Dr Kevan Collins (Chief Executive, Education Endowment Foundation) argued that: "pedagogy trumps curriculum every time. It is very clear that the way you teach and how you teach is always more powerful than just changing the curriculum".[97]


67.  The DfE told us that both deprivation and white ethnicity were associated with higher rates of absence from school, and with higher rates of fixed period exclusions.[98] While it is logical that absence from school can have a negative effect on educational outcomes, it is also possible that low achievement itself can fuel disengagement and increase absences. Table 7 shows that white British FSM children are absent far more often than Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi FSM children, but have a similar absence rate to mixed white and black Caribbean FSM children. Subgroups within the white category have the highest absence rates overall. In contrast, white British children who are not eligible for free school meals have a similar absence rate to other non-FSM children (other than the smaller white subgroups). Overall, the absence rate has fallen consistently since 2007/08.[99]Table 7: Absence rates (proportion of sessions missed) by ethnicity and FSM eligibility, 2012-2013 (state funded primary, secondary and special schools, England)
FSM eligible
Total absence (% of session) Unauthorised absence (% of session) Total absence (% of session) Unauthorised absence (% of session)
White 8.42.6 4.80.7
White British 8.42.6 4.70.7
Irish 10.74.0 4.90.7
Traveller of Irish heritage 19.78.2 23.16.7
Gypsy/ Roma 15.27.1 14.65.6
Any other white background 7.32.5 5.61.3
Mixed 7.72.5 4.70.9
White and Black Caribbean 8.32.9 5.11.1
White and Black African 6.72.1 4.40.8
White and Asian 7.62.4 4.50.7
Any other mixed background 7.42.3 4.70.8
Asian 5.81.6 4.60.9
Indian 5.41.2 4.10.6
Pakistani 6.11.7 5.01.1
Bangladeshi 5.51.4 4.91.0
Any other Asian background 5.51.5 4.20.8
Black 4.61.3 3.30.7
Black Caribbean 6.12.0 4.11.0
Black African 3.91.0 2.80.6
Any other Black background 5.41.6 3.70.8
Chinese 3.50.8 3.00.4
Any other ethnic group 5.51.7 4.81.2

Source: Department for Education (WWC 40)

68.  We welcome the reduction of the school absence rate in recent years. The Government must continue to focus on encouraging reduced absence from school.

69.  Table 8 shows that the exclusions picture is more complicated. While white British children eligible for free school meals have a much higher rate of fixed and permanent exclusions to similarly economically deprived Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi children, black Caribbean and mixed white and black Caribbean children have a higher rate still.Table 8: Rates of fixed period and permanent exclusions, 2011-12
FSM eligible
Fixed period exclusions (% of population) Permanent exclusions (% of population) Fixed period exclusions (% of population) Permanent exclusions (% of population)
White 5.610.23 1.860.05
White British 5.660.23 1.870.05
Irish 6.680.36 2.090.06
Traveller of Irish heritage 9.510.25 5.310.69
Gypsy/ Roma 9.710.47 5.450.24
Any other white background 3.640.15 1.470.04
Mixed 5.650.26 2.440.08
White and Black Caribbean 7.490.38 4.060.15
White and Black African 4.250.16 2.370.08
White and Asian 3.760.12 1.350.04
Any other mixed background 4.950.22 1.950.06
Asian 2.570.08 1.150.02
Indian 1.740.04 0.650.01
Pakistani 2.930.09 1.590.04
Bangladeshi 2.250.07 1.260.03
Any other Asian background 2.650.07 0.970.02
Black 4.690.16 3.310.10
Black Caribbean 6.740.35 4.790.18
Black African 3.880.09 2.610.06
Any other Black background 4.960.13 3.360.11
Chinese 0.42x 0.36x
Any other ethnic group 3.150.10 1.550.04

Source: Department for Education (WWC 41)


70.  A number of submissions noted that educational experience is not only linked to the formal curriculum but also to the social interactions that pupils engage in within the school. Based on a two-year research project on working class families in Bermondsey, South London, Gillian Evans's book Educational Failure and Working Class White Children in Britain highlights the differences in culture which working class pupils often encounter between their home, the street, and their schools.[100] She argues that white working class boys are often pressured to uphold a stereotypical tough 'street' reputation which is linked to concepts of masculinity, and which competes with a positive attitude towards schooling.

71.  Gillian Evans describes how this leads to the challenge of a "chaotic school in which a minority of disruptive boys dominate proceedings, a high-adrenaline environment where both children and staff have to cope constantly with the threat of disruption, intimidation and violence".[101] On peer behaviour, she notes that "the unobtrusive children, the ones who behave well but struggle to learn, continue to quietly demonstrate the fallacy that good behaviour means effective learning. Their lack of progress highlights the cost to the whole class of the teachers' continuous focus on trying to manage the behaviour of disruptive boys".[102]

72.  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation referred to a "middle-class ethos" in schools, to which working class children and their parents do not relate.[103] Professor Diane Reay told us that an education system that "accords positive value and meaning to working-classness" was needed, "instead of trying to make [everyone] middle class".[104] Professor Denis Mongon echoed this sentiment: "If you are working class and successful, you have got to abandon your mates and your community, because our system requires you to move on and be different. It is a big cultural ask for some youngsters at that very tense teenage point".[105]

Wider social issues and other factors

Working class engagement with the "marketization" of education

73.  The Government has made efforts recently to encourage parents to choose a school for their child based on data published by the Department for Education. A December 2013 report for the Sutton Trust found that although less than half of parents in each social group had made use of school attainment data in choosing schools for their children, it was disproportionately middle class parents who did so.[106] The report notes that "the assumption underpinning 'parental choice' is that parents are all equally informed and engaged in active choice-making", but Professor Francis explained that some working class parents behaved in ways that were more associated with the middle classes.[107] The Minister told us that he wanted to encourage working class parents to be more involved in school choice:

    Sometimes people do complain about sharp-elbowed parents and people who seek to invest a huge amount of money to give their young people opportunities in life, but we should not complain about any parent doing those things, whether they are in the state sector or the private sector. To do all you can to help your children succeed in life is exactly what we want everybody to be doing. I am afraid that we cannot cap any of those opportunities. What we need to do is extend them to young people who are not getting them at the moment.[108]


74.  A suggestion from some witnesses was that those who are new to a country are more willing to work hard or more likely to view education as a route out of poverty. Conversely, immigrants may also have less access to social capital or may be less familiar with the education system. The Minister referred to the "immigrant paradigm"[109] in the following terms:

    We have some evidence that in areas like London there are some higher aspirations that have an attainment impact. Sometimes that seems to be related to immigrant groups, who may be more aspirational by the nature that they have made big efforts to get where they are.[110]

75.  The OECD's PISA studies include information on immigration status and socio-economic status, but not ethnicity. In this context, children are classified as immigrants if they or their parents were born outside the country.[111] The OECD's own analysis of PISA 2009 data gives the following messages:

    Immigrant students who share a common country of origin, and therefore many cultural similarities, perform very differently across school systems [...] The difference in performance between immigrant students and non-immigrant students of similar socio-economic status is smaller in school systems with large immigrant populations and where immigrant students are as diverse in socio-economic status as other students.[112]

Written evidence from Dr John Jerrim notes no statistically significant differences in maths test scores between "native" and "immigrant" students in the UK, irrespective of socio-economic status.[113] This is consistent across the ten countries considered in his evidence; only in Australia do disadvantaged immigrant boys outperform disadvantaged native boys. Other studies report higher achievement by second-generation immigrants after control for socio-economic status and country of origin.[114]


76.  The NUT's 2009 report Opening Locked Doors—Educational Achievement and White Working Class Young People suggested that changing labour markets might offer an explanation for disengagement in education: "Thirty years ago a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old working class young person could walk out of school and into a decent working class job. That is no longer the case".[115] David Jones, a primary school headteacher from Bradford, described for us how underachievement in education is now more damaging for young people as a result of this change in labour opportunities over time:

    The impact of educational failure [in the past] was probably that you were condemned to a life of mass employment in whatever regional industry there was. Within that, you could be a fine, upstanding citizen and probably enjoy some of the cultural benefits of being in a brass band, working in textiles and all the other positive things that that working class life brought with it. Now, sometimes, it is to be condemned to the forgotten pile, and to have a life that has multiple deprivation and turbulence. Perhaps that is why we concentrate on it.[116]

Owen Jones described this phenomenon as the "hourglass" shape of the economy:

    […] we have the growth in middle-class professional jobs at the top and then low-paid, often very insecure service-sector jobs at the bottom. That means, if you are a school leaver where you could have got, as a boy, an apprenticeship as a route, therefore, to a skilled job, that does not exist so much. There is a growing need to academically prosper.[117]

Professor Alison Wolf (Sir Roy Griffiths Professor of Public Sector Management, King's College London) noted the regional dimension of this issue:

    We do need to recognise that a lot of the low achievement that is concentrated among white working class children is also related to where they live and, in many cases, to the fact that there are large parts of this country […] where you have got an economy that is still bearing the scars of the end of manufacturing and industrial employment […] a lot of the careers and jobs that were the bedrock of white working class family life for many decades and generations have vanished and have not been well replaced.[118]


77.  We also explored the role of genetics in shaping educational outcomes. Professor Robert Plomin (Professor of Behavioural Genetics, Kings College London) told us that 50% of the variation in children's individual educational achievement were the result of genetic factors, but that this finding could be misinterpreted as suggesting that half of a child's ability was a result of their genes.[119] Professor Plomin was also careful not to suggest that any policy conclusions necessarily followed from this result, but that "one thing that would seem to follow from recognising and respecting genetic differences between children is that you do not just blame teachers, and you do not just blame parents. Kids are different; they are different from birth".[120]

78.  While genetics may account for a substantial proportion of the differences in attainment between children in the population overall, this does not in itself mean that genetics is an explanation for the differences between different social classes; the effect will apply within each subgroup. Nevertheless, Professor Plomin described the role of genetics as "the elephant in the classroom", and told us that "When the chips come out—they are called chips, which can identify people's DNA differences—it is really going to change things fast".[121] The Minister was more sceptical:

    […] we need to do a bit more research to establish whether the professor is right or not. We do not, at the moment, have any solid international database, let alone a DfE database, that would allow us to establish whether he is correct […] In any case, I am not sure what policy implications it would have for us. We can see from places such as inner London the massive impact on young people you can make if you get the school system right. Our focus is on trying to achieve similar big improvements in attainment and reductions in the gap that we have. We would want to do that whatever genetic characteristics particular individuals might have, and we certainly would not want that to be an excuse for accepting low levels of attainment.[122]

We accept that, like social disadvantage, genetics has a role to play in educational outcomes although it is not clear to what extent. This should not deflect attention from the difference a school can make.

59   Association of School and College Leaders (WWC 5) para 9 Back

60   Q309 Back

61   Department for Education (WWC 28) para 43, quoting Schoon and Parsons, 2002 Back

62   Professor Steve Strand (WWC 4) para 9 Back

63   Leicester City Council, Learning Services (WWC 8) para 2 Back

64   Q157 & 159 Back

65   Q158 Back

66   Joseph Rowntree Foundation (WWC 9) p 2 Back

67   Joseph Rowntree Foundation (WWC 9) para 3.10 Back

68   Future Leaders Trust (WWC 21) para 3 Back

69   Todd, L. Et al (2012), Can changing attitudes and aspirations impact on educational attainment?  Back

70   Qq96-97 Back

71   Q57 Back

72   Ofsted, "Unseen Children: HMCI speech 20 June 2013", 20 June 2013 (accessed 28 November 2013) Back

73   Professor Steve Strand (WWC 4) para 8-9 Back

74   Q60 Back

75   Joseph Rowntree Foundation (WWC 9) para 4.5 Back

76   Ruth McLellan (WWC 12) para 3.5.1 Back

77   Association of School and College Leaders (WWC 5) para 12 Back

78   NASUWT (WWC 26) p 1 Back

79   NIACE, Family Learning Works: The Inquiry into Family Learning in England and Wales (October 2013)  Back

80   NIACE, Family Learning Works, quoting Nunn, A. et al. (2007) Factors influencing social mobility, Research Report No. 450, London: Department for Work and Pensions. Back

81   Department for Children, Schools and Families, Identifying Components of Attainment Gaps (March 2010), Research Report DCSF-RR217 Back

82   Q314 Back

83   "40% of Children Miss Out On The Parenting Needed To Succeed In Life-Sutton Trust", The Sutton Trust, 21 March 2014 Back

84   Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, State of the Nation 2013: social mobility and child poverty in Great Britain, October 2013, p 19 Back

85   Q77 Back

86   Q247 Back

87   Q167 Back

88   Qq385-387 Back

89   Clifton, J. and Cook, C. A Long Division: Closing the Gap in England's Secondary Schools, Institute for Public Policy Research, September 2012, p 4 Back

90   Association of School and College Leaders (WWC 5) para 3 Back

91   Ofsted (WWC 37) p 1 Back

92   Cassen, R. and Kingdon, G., Tackling Low Educational Achievement, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2007), pp xi-xii Back

93   See paragraph 47. Back

94   Professor Diane Reay (WWC 2) para 18 Back

95   Q105 Back

96   Professor Becky Francis (WWC 30) para 15 Back

97   Q 135 [Dr Collins] Back

98   Department for Education (WWC 28) paras 19-20  Back

99   Department for Education, Pupil absence in schools in England, including pupil characteristics, SFR 10/2013, May 2013 Back

100   Evans, G., Educational Failure and Working Class White Children in Britain, Palgrave Macmillan 2006 Back

101   Evans, G., Educational Failure and Working Class White Children in Britain, Palgrave Macmillan 2006, p 96 Back

102   Evans, G., Educational Failure and Working Class White Children in Britain, Palgrave Macmillan 2006, p 92 Back

103   Joseph Rowntree Foundation (WWC 9) para 4.5 Back

104   Professor Diane Reay (WWC 2) para 15 Back

105   Q257 Back

106   Francis, B. And Hutchings, M., Parent Power? Using money and information to boost children's chances of educational success, The Sutton Trust, December 2013 Back

107   Q82 Back

108   Q328 Back

109   Kao, G., & Thompson, J.S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual review of Sociology, 29(1), pp 417-442 Back

110   Q324 Back

111   Institute of Education (WWC 32) p 1 Back

112   OECD, PISA in Focus (no. 33) 2013/10, October 2013 Back

113   Institute of Education (WWC 32) p 3 Back

114   Levels, M., & Dronkers, J. (2008). Educational performance of native and immigrant children from various countries of origin. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31, pp 1404-1425 Back

115   National Union of Teachers, Opening Locked Doors: Educational Achievement and White Working Class Young People, 2009, para 45 Back

116   Q164 Back

117   Q246 Back

118   Q185 Back

119   Q66 Back

120   Q73 Back

121   Q70 [Professor Plomin] Back

122   Q302 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 18 June 2014