Our mission is to empower young people to embrace learning, unlocking both academic and vocational success.
Last October, when I gave evidence to the inquiry into white working class educational outcomes, I highlighted the cultural, economic, and systemic barriers young people from low-income backgrounds face – a system that equates aspiration with academic achievement and limits to their choices. Further evidence from Edge Foundation’s Deeper Learning UK partner, Three Spires Trust, in Staffordshire shows how these dynamics play out in predominantly white working class communities, such as Kidsgrove.Aimee Williams, Director of School Improvement at Three Spires Trust, recently shared evidence from a roundtable event, in which school leaders and pastoral staff explored how national policy impacts communities shaped by post-industrial decline. What emerged is less a story of low aspiration and more of aspiration configured differently than policy often assumes.
Practitioners described a so-called “imaginary wall” – rooted not in low ability or ambition, but in limited confidence, inherited narratives and an absence of lived examples of progression. Students frequently express their identities in simple terms: “this is where I'm from” or “this is all we know.” When asked about the future, they rarely framed success as leaving the area, instead prioritising family ties, social networks and preserving continuity. This is not a deficit. Strong networks provide stability and identity, particularly when economic insecurity has disrupted other forms of support. However, without structured ways to explore new opportunities, futures beyond the immediate community can feel abstract or unattainable. As one local practitioner observed, students rule themselves out of opportunities not through resistance, but through pre-emptive withdrawal.
The findings reveal a stark misalignment. National policy implicitly defines aspiration as leaving one’s community – but among young people, this creates cultural dissonance that undermines engagement rather than motivating forward progress. As I highlighted in my evdience to the inquiry, Edge’s ‘Young Live, Young Futures’ research shows how young people from low-income backgrounds who don't expect to attend university are significantly less likely to feel noticed, listened to, or encouraged by their teachers.
This connects to what Kidsgrove’s practitioners have observed around generational disengagement – students often assume barriers exist before starting out, commonly stating that opportunities are “not for people like us.” Furthermore, fear of failure functions as a protective strategy – avoiding challenges feels safer than the perceived risk of public failure. And while well-intended target-setting practices aim to tackle this, they inadvertently position students’ aspirations in relation to what’s deemed “realistic” rather than maximising what might be possible. In my evidence, I called for a broad and balanced pre-16 curriculum. Similarly, the practitioner roundtable highlighted how accountability frameworks – particularly Progress 8 – narrow the curriculum offer, thereby devaluing non-academic pathways. This inevitably limits students whose strengths may lie in practical, creative or relational areas
I believe that all learners should be supported into vocational education if this is the right choice for them. But qualifications like T Levels, while valuable for their work-experience component, often exclude white working-class learners through high entry requirements and the need to specialise. Fragile transitions between other educational phases exist, too. In short, when performance measures, instead of learner development, drive curriculum decisions, young people’s ambitions narrow. Adopting greater flexibility within accountability frameworks would support broad, relevant curricula without penalising schools that serve disadvantaged communities. The Kidsgrove roundtable evidence revealed that before asking what was involved with clubs, trips or enrichment activities, students commonly asked first about costs – often opting out based on the assumption of exclusion. Post-16, many also rule out further or higher education due to fears of debt.
During the inquiry I highlighted how financial necessity forces many young people into precarious work. The withdrawal of Educational Maintenance Allowance in 2011 has only made this more acute. The deeper issue, though, is cultural. Family support systems often lack the language and cultural capital to navigate education confidently. Practitioners described parents who care deeply but lack the language to discuss pathways, qualifications or progression.
However, schools that invested in sustained, relational and community-based engagement – meeting parents in familiar environments or prioritising dialogue over information delivery – strengthened trust notably, especially in areas where this was historically fragile.
The policy implications are clear. Primarily, we must recognise the value of place. To support young people’s aspirations rather than imposing expectations upon them, accountability frameworks need greater flexibility and breadth. And lastly, family engagement is essential. Only by investing in sustained relational work can we transform these strong sources of support into valuable learning partners. Contrary to certain narratives, aspirations in predominantly white working class communities do not need raising. They need redefining. Well-intentioned but borderline condescending policy narratives fail to honour communities with a strong place-based identity. However, by expanding possibility and ensuring opportunities are available when young people reach out for them, there is hope for a system that genuinely supports them to succeed.
Written by
Alice Gardner, Chief Executive, Edge Foundation.