Polling

Public First conducted three online polls as part of the Inquiry, with some question overlap to identify differences in attitudes between groups:

The young people and parent surveys were nationally representative. The school staff survey was designed to capture views from across schools and colleges in England, including staff working in schools serving substantial white working class populations. The polling was conducted online through a blend of proprietary panel providers.

Public First used a range of quality assurance measures to support the reliability of the polling. These included in-survey attention checks and retrospective open-response checks, reviewed by researchers to identify inattentive, rushed, scripted or bot-like responses. Surveys were designed to be simple, readable and accessible across devices. All percentages reported are based on the responses provided by participants.

Despite these quality assurances, it is worth noting that limitations exist in all research. One limitation we faced online polling may also under-represent the most disengaged groups, including NEETs and digitally excluded groups. Polling of children conducted through parents carries a risk that young people’s answers may be influenced by parents or carers.

Public First is a member of the British Polling Council and a Company Partner of the Market Research Society. All research was carried out in line with the professional and ethical standards set by these bodies, including our duty of transparency. Full polling tables are available on the Public First website.

Young Person Polling

The young people’s poll had a sample size of 2,007 and was conducted online between 26 June and 17 July 2025. Results were weighted using Iterative Proportional Fitting, or “raking”, by interlocking age and gender, region and social grade to nationally representative proportions.

For young people, the sample was reached through parents. Parents first answered a small number of demographic questions, including questions relating to income and class, before giving consent and handing the survey to their child. This approach enabled parental consent to be secured while allowing young people to answer the substantive survey questions themselves.

Parent Polling

The parent poll had a sample size of 2,003 and was conducted online between 13 and 29 July 2025. Results were weighted using Iterative Proportional Fitting, or “raking”, by interlocking age and gender, region and social grade to nationally representative proportions. All participants confirmed they had caring responsibilities for a school-aged child and passed a series of attention and quality checks.

School Staff Polling

The school staff poll surveyed 501 school staff in England from 17 to 23 October 2025. Within this survey, majority white working class schools were identified using staff self-reporting on sliding scales of class and ethnicity, from “mostly working class” to “mostly middle class” and from “mostly white British” to “mostly other ethnicities”. These responses were combined to identify schools which staff described as mostly white working class and mostly white British.

The survey also included a conjoint exercise in which staff were shown fictional pupil profiles with randomly selected characteristics and records, including GCSE performance, ethnicity, class background, attendance and extracurricular activities. Staff were then asked how likely they thought each pupil was to go to university, become NEET, enter further education, or go straight into employment.

Community Immersives

Public First conducted immersive research as part of the Inquiry, in both white working class communities and schools and colleges serving majority white working class pupils. The immersive research programme was designed to reach participants who would not participate in conventional forms of opinion research, and to identify effective practice that could potentially be tested or scaled.

Our community immersive research included fieldwork in two communities: Hartlepool in the North East, and Camborne and Redruth in Cornwall. Both were selected because of their majority-White British populations, relatively high levels of socio-economic disadvantage and poorer educational outcomes, making them relevant case studies for understanding how place, local economy, family experience and community culture shape attitudes towards education. In Hartlepool, a team of four researchers spoke to 66 residents over two days; in Camborne and Redruth, a team of four researchers spoke to 65 residents over two days.

Fieldwork was conducted through informal conversations in community settings including pubs, cafés, the seafront and secondary school pick-up times, with researchers prioritising people aged 20 to 40 in order to capture those with recent schooling experience or school-aged children, while also speaking to grandparents and other local residents. The community immersives were used to explore how residents understood school, success, local opportunity, curriculum, transitions, community life and the white working class attainment gap in the context of everyday local experience.

School Immersives

Public First conducted immersive research as part of the Inquiry, in both white working class communities and schools and colleges serving majority white working class pupils. The immersive research programme was designed to reach participants who would not participate in conventional forms of opinion research, and to identify effective practice that could potentially be tested or scaled.

Public First undertook immersive research visits to schools and colleges as part of the Inquiry. This included visits to three institutions: one primary school, one secondary school and one college. The secondary school selected was identified through data from the National Pupil Database, which showed it as having attainment and progress 8 scores for their pupils that were above the national average, while the primary was identified as having above the national average KS2 results in reading, writing and maths. Both schools also had only a small attainment gap between their white working class pupils and their average results.

Each visit was designed in discussion with the institution and included pupil focus groups, staff focus groups, one-to-one interviews with key staff, ethnographic-style observations, informal interviews and community-based observation. The approach was intended to triangulate and deepen emerging findings from the polling of young people, parents and school staff.

Researchers observed different parts of school and college life, including drop-off and pick-up, break and lunch time, lesson transitions, assemblies, internal exclusion, student support spaces, SEND provision, extracurricular activities and after-school provision. Informal interviews were also conducted where appropriate with pupils, staff, parents and local community members. Informed consent was secured for every conversation. Researchers followed a semi-structured discussion guide that was adapted, when necessary, for example for staff members’ specific responsibilities, or for age appropriateness.

Pupil Focus Groups

Pupil focus groups were convened during the immersive research in schools and colleges. For these groups, school leaders were asked to provide a group representative of 6-8 white working class pupils, defined by being White British and eligible for free school meals as this is the only socioeconomic data available to school leaders. College students, who are no longer eligible for free school meals, were selected through staff identification as white working class.

Parent Focus Groups

Public First conducted a series of focus groups with white working class parents as part of the Inquiry. Eight focus groups were undertaken between October and December 2025. Each group lasted 75 minutes and was facilitated by a Public First researcher using a semi-structured discussion guide. Quotations used in the report are drawn from participants’ own words and have been anonymised.

The parent focus groups were independently recruited and consisted of parents who defined themselves as White British and whose occupation placed them within social grades C2DE. Participants were recruited from areas in the South West, West Midlands and North East. In each region, groups were recruited from two contrasting locations: one with stronger educational outcomes for white working class young people, and one with weaker outcomes for this group. Groups were split between parents of primary school children and parents of secondary school children, and each group included a mixture of men and women.

Teacher Focus Groups

Public First conducted a series of focus groups with teachers as part of the Inquiry. Six focus groups were undertaken between October and December 2025. Each group lasted 75 minutes and was facilitated by a Public First researcher using a semi-structured discussion guide. Quotations used in the report are drawn from participants’ own words and have been anonymised.

The teacher focus groups were independently recruited from classroom teachers working in schools where at least 20% of pupils were White British and eligible for Free School Meals. Teachers were recruited from the South West, West Midlands and North East. Groups were split between primary and secondary teachers, and each included a mixture of men and women.

Expert Evidence Sessions

The Inquiry held a series of online evidence sessions with individuals with specialist knowledge of the issues and experiences facing white working class children and young people in the education system. These sessions were designed to build on the existing evidence base, test emerging hypotheses, and support the development of recommendations for schools, colleges, the wider sector and policymakers.

The Inquiry held five evidence sessions, each focused on a distinct theme: curriculum and teaching; transitions and destinations; inclusive practices; community influences; and vocational learning, colleges and technical and skills policy. The structure was designed to ensure that the Inquiry heard from experts across the main areas likely to shape white working class educational outcomes, from classroom practice and school improvement to post-16 routes, SEND, alternative provision, youth services, poverty, social cohesion, mental health and place-based services.

The sessions were semi-structured. The Inquiry Panel used the guiding questions to explore each session theme, while also asking follow-up questions in response to contributors’ evidence. This format allowed the Inquiry to gather both focused evidence on specific issues and wider reflections from experts with experience across education, policy, youth services, further and higher education, and employment. The session outline included invited contributors from a range of backgrounds, including, but not limited to, academics and former ministers, as well as leaders from schools and trusts, youth organisations, local government, further education and employers.

Evidence from these sessions was analysed thematically and triangulated with the Inquiry’s polling, qualitative research, immersive visits, roundtables, written evidence and data analysis.

School and College Leader Roundtables

The school, college and trust leader roundtables held in September 2025 brought together leaders from across the country working in schools and colleges serving high proportions of white working class pupils (as defined by proportion of students who are White British and eligible for free school meals). Sessions were held online, lasted 90 minutes, and were facilitated by a member of the Public First research team. All insights were anonymised.

The roundtables were semi-structured. Participants were shown emerging findings from the Inquiry’s parent and young people polling, before discussing a set of research questions. These included how leaders define “white working class” within their school or college communities; what they see as the main drivers of underperformance; what interventions they have tried to improve outcomes; whether interventions used with other targeted groups might be relevant; what has not worked; and what system-level support they would find helpful. This format allowed the Inquiry to test whether national polling findings resonated with frontline leaders, while also gathering grounded examples of practice relating to attendance, behaviour, curriculum relevance, transitions, enrichment, parental engagement, staffing, careers education and local labour markets.

The school, college and trust leader roundtables focused on what is visible from within education institutions, including data, accountability, curriculum, staffing and school-family relationships.

Community Roundtables

The community roundtables were held in white working class majority areas across England in January and February 2026. There were three locations: Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Great Yarmouth and Knowsley. Each was selected for its demographic composition characterised by large majority white British populations (as defined by >89% white British ethnicity), high levels of deprivation (as defined by ≥25% of the population deprived along at least two dimensions) and low levels of academic attainment (as defined by >25% with no qualifications). Participants were identified through desk-based research into organisations based in, and working with, the local community, supplemented by snowballing through local contacts.

Community roundtables were held in person and hosted by local organisations within each area. Each lasted two hours, was facilitated by a member of the Public First research team, and included between eight and seventeen participants. Participants included people working in local education, youth, employment, faith, voluntary, community and civic organisations. The roundtables followed a semi-structured format, guided by four core questions: what is driving the educational underachievement of white working class young people locally; what organisations in the area are doing to improve outcomes; what knowledge, tools and system conditions are needed to better support this work; and what it would take for government to improve outcomes for white working class young people in that area.

The community roundtables focused on the wider local conditions around schools, including local employment, civic infrastructure, youth provision, transport, family experience of education, social cohesion and place-based identity.

Call for evidence

The Inquiry ran an open call for evidence from September to December 2025 to hear from as wide a range of contributors as possible about the challenges and barriers facing white working class children and young people, what is happening in schools and colleges across England, what is working, and what more could be done. The call invited written and video submissions from young people, parents and carers, classroom teachers and wider school staff, school and college leaders, academics and research organisations, community and youth organisations, charities, third sector organisations and policymakers. Submissions could be made through an online form or by email, and contributors were invited to respond to one or more of four structured questions: how they define white working class; what drives underperformance; what the best available evidence shows about what has worked and what has not; and what interventions could improve outcomes.

The call for evidence received 111 responses across written and audio submissions, the majority of which were written. Submissions came from schools and colleges, third sector organisations and individuals, with one submission from a primary school council. All submissions were logged and analysed thematically against the four structured questions. Policy reports or academic literature submitted was fed into the Inquiry’s wider literature review. Submissions of data were received from the Parent Voice Project, the Fischer Family Trust, the Sutton Trust, and #BeeWell, and where this has been included in the findings, sources have been clearly indicated.

Literature review

The Inquiry included a literature review of existing evidence on educational disadvantage, social mobility, place and opportunity. This was used to understand what is already known about the scale and persistence of the white working class disadvantage gap, how outcomes differ across phases of education, and where the existing evidence base does or does not adequately capture the experiences of this group. The literature review also incorporated relevant policy reports and academic literature submitted through the call for evidence, ensuring that external contributions were synthesised into the Inquiry’s wider evidence base.

Policy Review

The Inquiry undertook a policy review examining how education policy in England since 1997 has influenced the outcomes of white working class children and young people. The review considered major reforms and programmes across area-based and place-based initiatives, curriculum and accountability, early years and family support, SEND, school improvement, access and participation, teacher recruitment and post-16 education and training. It assessed the extent to which white working class pupils had been directly targeted, indirectly reached through broader disadvantage measures, or missed by existing definitions, funding mechanisms and evaluation frameworks.

Comparative research of international case studies

The Inquiry also produced an international comparisons paper, examining four OECD case studies with relevant parallels for white working class educational outcomes in England: Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence and wider equity policy, the Success for All programme in Steubenville, Ohio, working class native communities in Amsterdam Noord, and education reforms in Ontario, Canada. These case studies were selected to provide insight into different approaches to entrenched disadvantage, including curriculum reform, early literacy, place-based policy, community engagement and system-wide improvement. The analysis considered both the relevance and limitations of these examples for England, recognising that policy lessons must be interpreted in light of different social, cultural and institutional contexts.

Data Analysis

Public First commissioned the UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunity (CEPEO) to undertake an analysis of the National Pupil Database (NPD) and the COVID Social Mobility & Opportunities study (COSMO) to generate statistics about its participants for this report.

The NPD is a large administrative dataset maintained by the Department for Education (DfE). All state-funded schools in England are mandated to provide the DfE with data concerning their pupils, as well as details of pupil attendance and exclusions. The DfE match this data with additional data provided by exam boards concerning pupils' attainment. UCL linked and analysed data tables in the NPD relating to pupil characteristics (the school census), school characteristics, Key Stage 2 attainment, Key Stage 4 attainment, attendance and exclusions.

Known limitations of the NPD are its weaker coverage of pupils in independent schools (and as such these were excluded from the analysis) and its absence of data relating to pupils in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. However, the NPD does not typically suffer from the non-response bias which can be associated with surveys or polls.

The tables below show the size of the particular datasets used in the analyses:

For attainment statistics in particular, only students in Year 6 or Year 11 are used. Cohort sizes are shown below:

COSMO is a representative longitudinal survey of close to 14,000 young people who were in Year 11 in the academic year 2020/21 recruited from schools across England and led by UCL Centre for Education Policy & Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO), UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) and the Sutton Trust. In the first two waves, data were collected from participants themselves and their parents to develop a rich understanding of pupils' family backgrounds and educational careers, particularly in the context of completing their education in the aftermath of the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among those who consented to such linkage (84%), COSMO data have been linked with administrative data from the NPD (see above) to obtain information on their academic attainment and other characteristics it includes.

Known limitations of COSMO are its smaller sample size compared to administrative data and its absence of data relating to pupils in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. There may also be risks of non-response and attrition bias, although substantial work has gone into recruiting and maintaining a representative sample with a weighting strategy employed in support of this aim.

The core sample analysed for this work consists in a sample of 10,040 from whom we have both ethnicity data (obtained from NPD linked data) and a parental response allowing us to identify the National Statistics - Socio Economic Classification (NS-SEC) measure of occupational status or 'class'. Item response to individual attitudinal questions will reduce the sample size in specific analyses. All analyses account for non-response and attrition bias using the study-provided weights.

Defining white working class

Defining “white working class” for the purposes of education research is challenging. For consistency with national education datasets and the polling undertaken for this Inquiry, references to “white working class” throughout this report refer primarily to White British pupils and families experiencing socio-economic disadvantage.

The Inquiry does not separately analyse the experiences of other White ethnic groups. We also recognise that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children and families face distinct and significant educational barriers. Their experiences sit outside the scope of this Inquiry, but they require dedicated attention within education policy and practice.

Within our research, we used three main definitions of class:

• FSM eligibility
• Socioeconomic Grades C2DE
• School staff identification

For any research which relied on national educational attainment data, the Inquiry primarily used White British pupils known to be eligible for Free School Meals as the only available pupil-level proxy for identifying socioeconomic status within national datasets. This included our data analysis, identification of white working class schools for immersive research, and identification of pupils for focus groups. However, the Inquiry recognises that FSM eligibility is an imperfect and restrictive measure of disadvantage and does not capture many families who identify as working class or who experience economic insecurity, limited opportunity, or place-based disadvantage.

For the parent and pupil polling, the Inquiry used White British C2DE socio-economic classifications, a definition of class not available within school administrative datasets. This allowed for an understanding of a broader range of experiences and attitudes among white working class pupils and families. This reflects the Inquiry’s view that white working class disadvantage cannot be understood through income alone, and is shaped by the interaction of ethnicity, class, place, family experience of education, and local economic conditions.

Within the school staff polling, majority white working class schools were identified using staff self-reporting on sliding scales of class and ethnicity, from “mostly working class” to “mostly middle class” and from “mostly white British” to “mostly other ethnicities”. These responses were combined to identify schools which staff described as mostly white working class and mostly white British. In our roundtables and focus groups, we also asked participants to reflect on their personal understanding of the term ‘white working class’, and how well they felt that aligned or differed from the data available to them.

The inconsistencies in data and definition have proved a central challenge to the Inquiry, and this is unpacked further within the first of our findings.

Analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative data were analysed to identify key patterns, differences and relationships within participant views.

Quantitative analysis was conducted by Public First using weighted polling data for the young people and parent surveys, and unweighted data for the school staff survey. Results were cross-tabulated by key demographic variables – including ethnicity, socio-economic group, region, school phase, parental education and other relevant characteristics – to surface meaningful differences and similarities across the group. Regression analysis was used to understand the drivers of people’s self-perceived social class. Descriptive statistics were then used to identify broad trends, while sub-group analysis provided a richer understanding of how experiences differ. In the school staff survey, analysis also compared responses from staff in schools identified as majority white working class with those from staff in other school contexts.

Qualitative analysis was conducted through thematic analysis of focus group transcripts, immersive research notes, roundtable discussions, evidence sessions and written submissions. Themes were identified across different strands of evidence and then triangulated against the polling and administrative data. This allowed the Inquiry to distinguish between findings that appeared consistently across groups and places, and those that were specific to particular phases, communities or institutional contexts.

Ethics and safeguarding

The research was conducted in line with Public First’s professional and ethical standards. Participants in the research were provided with information about the research and asked for consent before taking part. Young people participating in polling were reached through parents, enabling parental consent to be obtained.

In immersive research, participants were given a clear explanation of the Inquiry, the purpose of the research, how their contribution would be used, and their right not to take part before any substantive conversation began. Conversations were audio recorded, except when participants requested not to be, in which case written notes were taken. All data was anonymised at the point of analysis, with names and identifying details removed, and quotations attributed only using broad characteristics where relevant. Notes were stored securely, used only for research and analysis purposes, and any personally identifiable information was deleted once it was no longer required for analysis, in line with Public First’s data protection and ethical research procedures.

For immersive visits to schools and colleges, safeguarding procedures were underpinned by SHGH’s safeguarding policy and the safeguarding policies of the participating schools and colleges. Each immersive visit had a designated safeguarding researcher responsible for ensuring that any concerns were communicated immediately to the school’s designated safeguarding officer. Researchers worked in pairs during unstructured parts of visits and whenever interacting, or potentially interacting, with young people. Researchers wore school visitor identity badges, held appropriate DBS checks, and secured informed consent for interviews. No photography of young people or identifying elements of schools was permitted.

The findings that follow bring together evidence from across the full research programme, combining the breadth of polling and data analysis with the depth of direct engagement with pupils, parents, teachers, leaders and communities.

Read our Findings