The forgotten: how White working-class pupils have been let down, and how to change it Contents

---

Formal minutes

Wednesday 16 June 2021

Members present:

Robert Halfon, in the Chair

Fleur Anderson	Kim Johnson
Apsana Begum	David Johnston
Jonathan Gullis	Ian Mearns
Tom Hunt	David Simmonds
Dr Caroline Johnson	Christian Wakeford

Draft Report (The forgotten: how White working-class pupils have been let down, and how to change it) proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Draft Report (Facing the facts: how the systemic underinvestment in de-industrialised communities in ‘left behind’ regions is bringing down the educational attainment of working-class pupils), proposed by Kim Johnson, brought up and read, as follows:

Facing the facts: how the systemic underinvestment in de-industrialised communities in ‘left behind’ regions is bringing down the educational attainment of working-class pupils

1.While this inquiry began with a focus on disadvantaged White pupils (specifically, those eligible for free school meals, or FSM), the evidence that we have received clearly indicates that this is an issue of class and often regional inequalities, rather than being about ethnicity.

2.Using “White working class” as a proxy for disadvantaged children is misleading. As written evidence to our inquiry explained, around 57% of British adults would describe themselves as working class, while children who are FSM-eligible account for around 14% of 16 year olds.265 We must also remember that the ‘working class’, or disadvantaged groups, are multi-ethnic, with half of half of all Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic children living in poverty in this country. For every £1 of White British wealth, Pakistani households have around 50p, Black Caribbean have 20p and Black African and Bangladeshi have 10p.266 Conflating “working class” with FSM-eligibility is misleading and serves to downplay the deep racial inequalities that ethnic minority pupils and particularly Black pupils face in educational settings.

3.We also observe that pupils from White British backgrounds are statistically less likely to be FSM-eligible than pupils from other ethnic backgrounds. As the Runnymede Trust pointed out in their written evidence, roughly one in ten White children are claiming free school meals, while the “figures for other, non white groups claiming FSMs are far higher”.267 The Runnymede Trust adds that:

In reality, of those claiming FSMs just over one-in-five were Black pupils, just under one-in-five were pupils from a Mixed race background and 18% were Asian pupils with 11% being White students.

4.In reality, all ‘working class’ groups are being held back, but for some of those groups this is compounded by racism. When we scrutinised the data, it became apparent that there is a different narrative emerging to one about the ‘left-behind White working class’. In fact, the groups that have the lowest outcomes in education, for both FSM-eligible and non-FSM-eligible, are children from Gypsy/Roma and Irish Traveller backgrounds, who have consistently poor outcomes and deserve more targeted support. With reference to academic results, FSM-eligible boys from mixed White and Black Caribbean, and Black Caribbean backgrounds, sometimes achieve similar or lower scores to FSM-eligible boys from White British backgrounds.268 For example, while FSM-eligible White British boys had lower Progress 8 scores in 2019 (an average of -1.02), FSM-eligible boys from a mixed White and Black Caribbean background scored lower in Attainment 8 (28.0, against 29.0 for disadvantaged White boys), and had lower rates of achieving a grade 9–4 (or pass) at English and Maths GCSE (29.7%, against 31.7% for disadvantaged White boys).

5.The challenges facing pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds are not confined to academic outcomes. Written evidence also drew our attention to low teacher expectations for Black Caribbean students, disproportionate rates of exclusion for Black Caribbean and Mixed White/Black Caribbean students,269 and disproportionate rates of children from BAME backgrounds in custody.270 We must acknowledge these additional challenges, which have a significant bearing on life outcomes. For example, we know that young people excluded from school are more likely to be victims of crime, and four times as many young people excluded from school fail to gain any qualifications at age 16 compared to those who are not excluded (source: Crawford, Demack, Gillborn, Gillborn & Warmington, 2020).

6.Only addressing the barriers facing disadvantaged White students would systematically disadvantage other ethnic groups and increase racial educational inequalities. Much of the evidence we heard focused on addressing geographic and place-based inequalities, which can affect children of any ethnicity, and the need for investment to reverse the effects of years of austerity and a policy of managed decline for post-industrial areas that have suffered from systematic under-investment that has left the UK among the most geographically unequal countries in the developed world.271

7.The Institute for Fiscal Studies have found that school spending per pupil has reduced by 9% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20,272 and the School Cuts Campaign estimates that there will be a £1.3 billion funding shortfall by 2022/23 compared with 2015/16.273 This reduction in funding, coupled with systematic de-industrialisation in ‘left-behind’ regions are key drivers of poor educational outcomes for disadvantaged communities, and we have received no convincing evidence that underinvestment in good, skilled, sustainable jobs in these regions is not the main driver of low educational outcomes for disadvantaged communities, including disadvantaged White communities. We were also very concerned about the potential impact of the Department’s decision to use data from the October 2020 census in place of the January 2021 census for allocations in 2020–21,274 which has resulted in a stealth cut to pupil premium funding of around £133 million. It is useful to call for more targeting of resources, but what disadvantaged pupils really need is more of these resources, particularly in the face of cuts to funding specifically for disadvantaged pupils.275

8.Key to addressing these low outcomes is a focus on levelling up for all disadvantaged communities in ‘left-behind’ regions, through significant investment to improve equality of opportunity, productivity and prosperity across the UK – which in turn will significantly improve educational attainment for the most disadvantaged, including disadvantaged White communities. A Black child growing up in Hartlepool suffers from the same multi-generational poverty and lack of opportunity as a White child growing up in Hartlepool. These are geographic and class disparities, not racialised disparities and we have to understand this if we are to tackle them.

9.We also contest claims that family structure has some kind of specific bearing on the attainment of disadvantaged White children. Government data shows that 18.9% of Black households are made up of a single parent with dependent children—the highest percentage of all ethnic groups for this type of household.276 Asserting that cultural factors are a significant factor is vague, lazy and lacks basis in evidence. All disadvantaged families, across the board, face disproportionate barriers to engagement with schools and other support services, and the Department must do more to support all these families, particularly those in left-behind regions. While some sources, including the widely discredited report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, may talk about an “immigrant paradigm”, we saw no compelling evidence that this has any impact on the educational under-achievement of disadvantaged White pupils, and also note that many ethnic minorities have lived for many generations in the same areas and suffer from the same systemic disadvantages as White communities living in the same areas. We were deeply concerned at the publication of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, particularly its offensive assertion that structural racism no longer exists. We do not believe that report should be used as a framework for addressing disparities in education.

10.On the issue of higher education, while relatively high numbers of students from BAME backgrounds do go to university, not only are they more likely to drop out without completing their degree, but even when achieving the same or better degree outcomes they are still less likely to be represented in the workforce. The Office for Students should focus its efforts on geographic-based targets, which will be more effective at targeting the barriers faced by working-class communities, including majority White communities, in left-behind areas by identifying the challenges they’re facing and dismantling the existing barriers.

11.It is not enough to suppose that punishing schools for struggling to comply with the Baker Clause is a solution to a lack of employment opportunities in some areas. This issue will only be solved through significant and state-planned and funded investment. Punishing schools for not connecting pupils to the meagre opportunities that currently exist will not help, or be effective in closing the attainment gap and getting working class pupils into decent jobs.

12.To be clear, we care deeply about improving the educational attainment and life opportunities of White working class children, alongside all disadvantaged children. But to make recommendations which pit different groups within our multi-ethnic working class against each other in a struggle for meagre resources is to do an injustice to our most disadvantaged children, including specifically White communities that have been ‘left behind’. If we do not recognise the true causes of their disadvantage, we cannot hope to dismantle them. Instead, we must engage with the evidence, which demonstrates clearly that systemic underinvestment and multi-generational deprivation are the primary drivers of educational under-attainment in left-behind communities—where the majority of the White working class reside. Our recommendations must seek to address these challenges and dismantle these barriers if we are to materially improve the educational attainment levels and life chances for disadvantaged White children—and indeed all communities—in these areas.

13.What all disadvantaged pupils, including disadvantaged White pupils, need is more investment. From the underfunding of the childcare and early years sector,277 to devastating cuts to youth services,278 to the dearth of meaningful career opportunities in many left-behind neighbourhoods and discrimination in the labour market, through to years of Conservative Government cuts to school funding—changes that do not involve an increase of funding are not going to deliver the change that these pupils (of all ethnicities) desperately need.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chair’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.—(The Chair.)

Amendment proposed, to leave out “Chair’s draft Report” and insert “draft Report proposed by Kim Johnson”.—(Kim Johnson.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 4	Noes, 6
Fleur Anderson	Jonathan Gullis
Apsana Begum	Tom Hunt
Kim Johnson	Dr Caroline Johnson
Ian Mearns	David Johnston
	David Simmonds
	Christian Wakeford

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, put and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Chair’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 5 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 6 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 7, leave out “greater” and insert “different” ”.—(Fleur Anderson.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 4	Noes, 6
Fleur Anderson	Jonathan Gullis
Apsana Begum	Tom Hunt
Kim Johnson	Dr Caroline Johnson
Ian Mearns	David Johnston
	David Simmonds
	Christian Wakeford

Question negatived.

Paragraph 6 agreed to.

Paragraphs 7 to 21 read and agreed to.

With the leave of the Committee, a single Question was put in relation to paragraphs 22 to 29.

Motion made, to leave out paragraphs 22 to 29 and insert the following new paragraphs:

Blaming the educational underachievement of White working-class communities on the concept of ‘White Privilege’ or critical race theories, rather than the systematic deindustrialisation and underinvestment of successive Conservative governments, is a red herring. Reviewing its use in the classroom, and in publicly funded bodies that work with children, will do nothing to materially improve the lives of White working class communities or the educational attainment of White working class pupils. We have seen no evidence in this inquiry that the idea of White Privilege affects outcomes for disadvantaged White pupils, but there is a wealth of evidence behind the articulation of White Privilege as a concept, as well as evidence that shows that a lack of investment is a key driver in limiting educational attainment outcomes for White working class pupils.

Recent comments from the Minister for Equalities. Kemi Badenoch, about “pernicious stuff being pushed”,[1] as well as the report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities and its recommendation that the Department should publish guidance for schools on “how to tell the multiple, nuanced stories that have shaped the country we live in today”[2] show a clear ideology beginning to form that borders on an authoritarian attack on freedom of speech and an insidious attempt to prevent racialised communities from articulating their experiences of racism.

[1]HC Deb, 20 October 2020, Column 1012, [Commons Chamber]

[2] Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The report, 31 March 2021, p93—(Kim Johnson.)

Question put.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 4	Noes, 6
Fleur Anderson	Jonathan Gullis
Apsana Begum	Tom Hunt
Kim Johnson	Dr Caroline Johnson
Ian Mearns	David Johnston
	David Simmonds
	Christian Wakeford

Question accordingly negatived.

Paragraph 22 read.

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Paragraph 22 accordingly agreed to.

Paragraph 23 read as follows:

White Privilege is used in the context of discrimination and racism and the challenges that people from ethnic minorities face. We recognise the importance of openly discussing and addressing racism in all its forms. Like the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, however, we are concerned that the phrase may be alienating to disadvantaged White communities, and it may have contributed towards a systemic neglect of White people facing hardship who also need specific support. It also fails to acknowledge the damage caused by other forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism and the marginalisation of people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds. Some research from the United States also suggests that learning about White Privilege may reduce sympathy for White people who are struggling with poverty. According to a 2019 US study: “White privilege lessons may lead some people to see a hierarchy in which Whiteness is always privileged to the same degree irrespective of individual-level variability, such as growing up in an impoverished situation

Amendment proposed, in line 7, leave out “It also” and insert “It was noted during our evidence hearings that a lot of children in these disadvantaged white communities aren’t aware of their own disadvantage.[1] This is a problem. As a committee we believe that the use of terms such as ‘White Privilege’ doesn’t help this matter. This is coupled with the fact that there is an industry which has emerged to support these other groups in a form that isn’t available for disadvantaged white pupils. White Privilege also”

[1] See, for example, Qq 266–271 Rae Tooth—(Tom Hunt.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment, in footnote 1, at end insert “and The Telegraph, Primary school pupils should learn about white privilege, says RE teachers’ organisation, 15 June 2021”.—(Jonathan Gullis.)

Question put, That the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the proposed amendment, as amended, be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Proposed amendment, as amended, accordingly made.

Question put, That paragraph 23, as amended, be added to the Report.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Paragraph 23, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Paragraph 24 read.

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Paragraph 24 accordingly agreed to.

Paragraph 25 read.

Amendment proposed, at end add “Organisations which are in receipt of taxpayer money should have full regard to their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and should consider whether the concept of White Privilege is consistent with those duties.—(Tom Hunt.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That paragraph 25, as amended, stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Paragraph 25, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

With the leave of the Committee, a single Question was put on paragraphs 26 to 28.

Paragraphs 26 to 28 read.

Question put, That paragraphs 26 to 28 stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Paragraphs accordingly agreed to.

Paragraph 29 read as follows:

Schools must have clear guidance that they should not promote politically controversial terminology, including “White privilege”. The Department should take steps to ensure that young people are not inadvertently being inducted into political movements when what is required is balanced, age-appropriate discussion and a curriculum that equips young people to thrive in diverse and multi-cultural communities throughout their lives and work. The Department should issue clear guidance for schools and other Department-affiliated organisations receiving grants from the Department on how to deliver teaching on these complex issues in a balanced, impartial and age-appropriate way.

Amendment proposed, leave out “Schools must have clear guidance that they should not promote politically controversial terminology, including “White privilege””, and insert “Schools should consider whether the promotion of politically controversial terminology, including “White Privilege”, is consistent with their duties under the Equality Act 2010”.—(Jonathan Gullis.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Question accordingly agreed to.

Paragraph 29, as amended, be added to the report.

Question agreed to.

Paragraphs 30 to 36 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 37 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 38 to 50 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 51 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 52 to 68 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 69 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 70 to 102 read and agreed to.

Paragraph—(Fleur Anderson)—brought up, read the first and second time and added (now paragraph 103).

Paragraph—(Fleur Anderson)—brought up, read the first and second time and added (now paragraph 104).

Paragraph—(Fleur Anderson)—brought up, read the first and second time and added (now paragraph 105).

Paragraphs 103 to 112 read and agreed to (now paragraphs 106 to 115).

Paragraph 113 read, amended and agreed to (now paragraph 116)

Paragraphs 114 to 123 read and agreed to (now paragraphs 117 to 126).

Paragraph—(Fleur Anderson)—brought up and read, as follows:

There are also concerns about the amount of the funding which fall short of Sir Kevan Collins’ recommendations, which included 100 extra hours of teaching per pupil and would have cost around £15bn, which is a long way from the new package of recovery measures announced by the government. Sir Kevin Collins has called the plans “half-hearted”, and stood down from his post as commissioner after just four months. In his resignation letter he said that the funding ‘falls far short of what is needed. Not enough is being done to help vulnerable pupils, children in the early years or 16- to 19-year-olds. Above all, I am concerned that the package announced… betrays an undervaluation of the importance of education, for individuals and as a driver of a more prosperous and healthy society”.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 4	Noes, 6
Fleur Anderson	Jonathan Gullis
Apsana Begum	Tom Hunt
Ian Mearns	Dr Caroline Johnson
Kim Johnson	David Johnston
	David Simmonds
	Christian Wakeford

Question accordingly negatived.

Paragraph 124 read and agreed to (now paragraph 127).

Paragraph 125 read, amended and agreed to (now paragraph 128).

Paragraph 126 read and agreed to (now paragraph 129).

Paragraph 127 read, amended and agreed to (now paragraph 130).

Paragraphs 128 to 147 read and agreed to (now paragraphs 131 to 150).

Paragraph 148 read (now paragraph 151).

Amendment proposed, line 24, at end insert “Outreach to increase participation and wider access is important, but taxpayers’ should not be funding schemes that exclude applicants on the basis of their ethnicity or skin colour”.—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 3	Noes, 7
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Kim Johnson
	David Johnston
	Ian Mearns
	David Simmonds
	Christian Wakeford

Question accordingly negatived.

Paragraph 148 agreed to (now paragraph 151).

Paragraphs 149 to 151 read and agreed to (now paragraphs 152 to 154).

Summary read.

Amendment proposed, paragraph 1, line 13, at end insert “To be clear, our findings are not that the white working class are held back because of the gains made by minority groups, but that white working class children are losing out because of decades of underinvestment, and this should be recognised and addressed. Addressing the range of factors disadvantaging this group will raise the attainment of all groups and this is our aim”.—(Fleur Anderson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 4	Noes, 6
Fleur Anderson	Jonathan Gullis
Apsana Begum	Tom Hunt
Kim Johnson	Dr Caroline Johnson
Ian Mearns	David Johnston
	David Simmonds
	Christian Wakeford

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, paragraph 18, line 24, leave out “We agree with the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities that current discourse around White Privilege can be divisive and”.—(Fleur Anderson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 4	Noes, 6
Fleur Anderson	Jonathan Gullis
Apsana Begum	Tom Hunt
Kim Johnson	Dr Caroline Johnson
Ian Mearns	David Johnston
	David Simmonds
	Christian Wakeford

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made.

Summary, agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 6	Noes, 4
Jonathan Gullis	Fleur Anderson
Tom Hunt	Apsana Begum
Dr Caroline Johnson	Ian Mearns
David Johnston	Kim Johnson
David Simmonds
Christian Wakeford

Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available (Standing Order No. 134).

[Adjourned till 23 June 2021 at 9.30 am