Disengaged White Working-Class Pupils

@TeacherToolkit

Ross Morrison McGill founded @TeacherToolkit in 2007 and is widely recognised as one of the leading influencers in education in the UK and across the world. In 2015, he was named among The Sunday Times/Debrett’s 500 Most Influential People in Britain for his impact on…
Read more about @TeacherToolkit

How can we support disengaged White working-class students?

White working-class kids who start secondary school are already switched off—and they stay that way, while others bounce back.

Who’s disengaged and why it matters

This research, How Engaged Are Low-Income White Children During Secondary School? (Jerrim, 2025) looks at White British, Free School Meals pupils (n = 19,333) and investigates the engagement of low-income White children in 129 secondary schools across England.

Jerrim’s study finds that LIWC students are England’s most disengaged group.

Engagement is defined, and falls into three categories—cognitive (thinking), emotional (feeling), and behavioural (doing)—and LIWC students score lowest in all three.

In addition, these students start secondary school less engaged than their peers and remain so throughout Key Stage 3. This isn’t a sudden drop—it’s disengagement from day one in Year 7.

The research suggests:

1. Cognitively, LIWC girls reported the weakest sense of academic agency and lowest interest in lessons.
2. Emotionally, both boys and girls showed alarmingly low enjoyment of school—averaging just 2.6 out of 10.
3. Behaviourally, LIWC boys were the least likely to exert effort or hand in homework on time.

White British FSM students begin secondary school with the lowest cognitive engagement and continue to decline throughout Year 7, unlike Asian FSM peers who show signs of recovery by the summer term.

Why does this matter for classroom teachers?

This study confirms what some teachers already observe: disengaged White working-class students often arrive at secondary school already withdrawn from learning.

Because disengagement is the silent predictor of underachievement. This study confirms what many teachers (and parents) already feel—some students are ‘checked out’ before they’ve even got going. And once disengagement sets in, it’s hard to reverse.

Cultural factors, such as limited “aspirational capital” (Basit, 2012), combine with structural poverty, geographical disadvantage, and subtle biases in schools. While other ethnic groups (e.g., Black and South Asian) show greater resilience and value placed on education, LIWC students are more likely to undervalue schooling and feel disconnected from its purpose. And it’s not just about family income or postcode. The data suggests an additive effect—being both White and socio-economically disadvantaged creates a compounded risk of disengagement, with girls disproportionately affected.

What can teachers do about it?

Here are some research-informed strategies:

1. Rebuild academic agency: Use clear language to reinforce that students can influence their outcomes. Phrases like “Your effort shapes your future” are more than slogans—they build internal belief.
2. Make the curriculum relevant: This isn’t about ‘dumbing down’—it’s about connecting content to lived experiences. What does Shakespeare say to a child in a post-industrial town? Make it matter.
3. Prioritise relational teaching: Relationships drive engagement. Daily check-ins, positive phone calls home, and consistency in behaviour expectations are small wins that build trust.
4. Segment strategies by gender: LIWC girls benefit from initiatives that build confidence and peer connection. Boys need support in valuing school effort and raising their aspirations.

Most importantly: intervene early. Research such as the EEF’s Teaching and Learning Toolkit underscores that disengagement is the silent predictor of underachievement.

The study shows that Year 7 is not when the problem starts—it’s where it becomes visible. Schools must better support the transition from Year 6, particularly for this group.

While all groups see emotional engagement fall during Year 7 (see Cold Calling), Black FSM students report the steepest drop in teacher relationships, and White British FSM students experience sustained declines in both peer and teacher connections.

CPD questions for teachers:

1. How is engagement monitored beyond attendance and detentions?
2. Are transition plans from Year 6 to Year 7 robust enough for at-risk groups?
3. How relevant is the curriculum to students’ lives and contexts?
4. What does academic agency look like in classroom talk and routines?
5. Do all teachers know how to spot the early signs of disengagement?
6. What assumptions might exist around LIWC students—and how are they challenged?
7. Do school policies address gender-specific disengagement patterns?
8. Are parents of LIWC students being actively engaged and supported?
9. How are student voices being included in engagement solutions?
10. What professional development helps staff understand the intersection of class, race, and gender?

The research concludes:

Targeted support is needed: LIWC boys need help valuing education and increasing effort, LIWC girls need greater agency and peer connection, and Black students need stronger relationships with teachers.

Share?