Last Updated on October 27, 2026 by Karl Thompson
It is possible that differences in educational achievement by ethnicity are caused by differences in the levels of material deprivation experienced by different ethnic groups.
However, while this theory is worth investigating, it turns out that poverty can’t explain the ethnic pattern on its own. The ethnic groups most likely to be poor are not the ones with the lowest results. For example, Bangladeshi children are the most likely of any group to live in a low-income household, yet Bangladeshi pupils get better GCSE results on average than White British pupils, who are the least likely to be poor.
This post sets out the figures on poverty by ethnicity, compares them with the figures on achievement, and evaluates how far material deprivation explains the differences. It’s part of the sociology of education module, examined on AQA Paper 1 (7192/1).
Material deprivation and educational achievement
Material deprivation means not being able to afford the resources and services most people take for granted. In education, it can hold children back because their families can’t meet the hidden costs of school, such as trips, uniform and equipment; because they lack resources at home, such as a computer or a quiet place to study; because they are more likely to live in deprived areas with harder-pressed schools; and because money worries can put pressure on family life. The concept, and the evidence for it, is covered in full on that post. This post applies it to ethnicity.
Poverty by ethnicity
Some ethnic groups are much more likely to live in poverty than others. The government’s main measure of poverty counts people living in households with less than 60% of the median household income, after housing costs.
| Ethnic group | % of children in low-income households | % of all people in low-income households |
|---|---|---|
| Bangladeshi | 65% | 53% |
| Pakistani | 59% | 47% |
| Chinese | 49% | 36% |
| Black | 49% | 39% |
| Mixed | 39% | 28% |
| Indian | 30% | 26% |
| White British | 24% | 18% |
| All | 30% | 21% |
UK, three-year average April 2021 to March 2024, after housing costs. Source: Ethnicity facts and figures, People in low income households (DWP, Households Below Average Income), published 9 July 2025.
So Bangladeshi and Pakistani children are more than twice as likely as White British children to grow up in a low-income household, and Chinese and Black children are about twice as likely.
Does material deprivation explain differential achievement by ethnicity?
If we compare these figures with GCSE results, we find that poverty CANNOT explain the ethnic pattern on its own:
| Ethnic group | % of children in low-income households | Average Attainment 8 score at GCSE |
|---|---|---|
| Bangladeshi | 65% | 51.9 |
| Pakistani | 59% | 47.0 |
| Chinese | 49% | 65.5 |
| Indian | 30% | 59.4 |
| White British | 24% | 44.9 |
Poverty: as above (UK, 2021–24). GCSE: England, state-funded schools, 2022/23 (Ethnicity facts and figures, GCSE results (Attainment 8), published 7 November 2024).
- Bangladeshi children are the most likely to be poor, yet Bangladeshi pupils score 7 points above White British pupils at GCSE.
- Chinese children are twice as likely to be poor as White British children, yet Chinese pupils get the best GCSE results of all.
- Pakistani children are more than twice as likely to be poor as White British children, yet score slightly higher.
- White British children are the least likely to be poor, yet have lower average results than most minority groups.
If material deprivation were the main cause, we would expect the order to be roughly the other way round.
Poor ethnic minority children generally do better than poor White children
We can also compare pupils who are eligible for free school meals (FSM), the DfE’s indicator of poverty, across ethnic groups.
| Ethnic group | Eligible for FSM | Not eligible |
|---|---|---|
| Chinese | 60.3 | 65.9 |
| Indian | 48.6 | 60.4 |
| Bangladeshi | 47.7 | 54.2 |
| Black African | 44.7 | 50.7 |
| Pakistani | 42.2 | 48.9 |
| Black Caribbean | 35.3 | 43.1 |
| White British | 30.9 | 48.6 |
| All pupils | 34.8 | 49.6 |
Average Attainment 8 score, England, 2022/23. Source: Ethnicity facts and figures, GCSE results (Attainment 8), published 7 November 2024.
Of particular note:
- Poverty lowers results in every ethnic group, so material deprivation does matter.
- But poor White British pupils have the lowest results of any of these groups (30.9), and the biggest gap between poor and better-off pupils (17.7 points).
- Poor Chinese pupils (60.3) do better than better-off pupils from every other group except Indian pupils.
- Poor Bangladeshi pupils (47.7) score almost as well as better-off White British pupils (48.6).
Steve Strand’s (2021) analysis of a national sample of GCSE students points the same way. Once family background is taken into account, he found that the overall picture was one of ‘ethnic minority advantage’: at low and average socio-economic status, no ethnic minority group scored substantially below White British students, and in most comparisons the minority group scored substantially above. White British boys from low-income backgrounds were among the lowest-scoring groups of all.
The main exception is Black Caribbean pupils, whose results are lower than White British pupils’ among better-off families as well as poorer ones, which suggests something other than poverty is at work there.
Evaluation: how far does material deprivation explain the differences?
It explains some of the pattern. Poverty lowers results in every ethnic group, and groups with high rates of poverty would probably do even better if they were less poor. So material deprivation is part of the explanation; it just can’t be the whole of it.
It can’t explain why poverty affects some groups more than others. Something seems to protect many poor Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi and Black African pupils from the effects of poverty. Possible explanations are cultural factors such as parental expectations and aspirations, and the optimism of recent migrant families about education (see cultural factors).
Income isn’t the same as class. Some migrant families may be poor in Britain but have parents who were well educated in their country of origin. They may have more cultural capital than their income suggests, which could help explain why poverty seems to hold their children back less.
It doesn’t explain the Black Caribbean gap. Because Black Caribbean pupils score below White British pupils at similar income levels, many sociologists look to in-school factors, such as teacher expectations, setting and exclusion, for the explanation.
Poverty may matter more later on. Higher education involves bigger costs, and some research suggests that cost and fear of debt matter more at that stage. But ethnic minority students are much more likely to go to university than White students (see ethnicity and education statistics), so here too material deprivation doesn’t fit the ethnic pattern neatly.
Conclusions: material deprivation doesn’t explain the differences on its own
The figures show no simple link between poverty and achievement across ethnic groups. Material deprivation lowers achievement within every group, but the groups most likely to be poor are often not the ones with the lowest results. To explain the differences we also need to look at home-based cultural factors and in-school factors.
Material deprivation and ethnicity in the exam
This material is useful in the 30-mark question on ethnic differences in achievement (AQA June 2019, Q04: see the full essay). The free school meals comparison is one of the most effective pieces of evaluation you can use: it shows in one sentence that poverty matters but can’t explain the ethnic pattern.
Sociology of Education Revision Bundle
If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my sociology of education revision notes bundle, written by Karl Thompson, who taught A-level sociology for eighteen years and spent twelve as an AQA examiner, marking all three papers on the current specification.
Signposting
This material is usually taught as part of the education module within A-level Sociology. For material deprivation as a concept, see the effects of material deprivation on education.
Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com
Sources
- Ethnicity facts and figures: People in low income households (DWP, Households Below Average Income, April 2021 to March 2024; published 9 July 2025); GCSE results (Attainment 8), 2022 to 2023 (published 7 November 2024).
- Strand, S. (2021) Ethnic, socio-economic and sex inequalities in educational achievement at age 16. Report for the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities.
Pre-update graphs…
