In 2024, young people disadvantaged by the system were more likely to get lower GCSE grades, be excluded from school, and struggle to find employment. Yet, despite the many government policies and community-led “solutions”, these problems have persisted for decades. Why is this? The answer lies in deficit thinking—a pervasive ideology that places blame on young people for the challenges they face while ignoring the systemic structures that create those challenges in the first place.

At Class 13, we believe it’s time to call out deficit thinking for what it is: the barrier to equity and progress. As James Baldwin reminds us, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” 

What is deficit thinking?

Deficit thinking is the belief that inequalities stem from perceived intellectual, moral, cultural, or behavioural shortcomings in individuals. In education, it manifests through assumptions about young people, their families, and the communities they belong to —in a subtle sleight of hand, shifting blame for systemic failures onto those most affected by them.

Take school exclusions, for example. The conversation frequently centres on “behavioural issues” or “poor home environments,” drawing attention away from how schools over time have implemented increasingly rigid policies. Meanwhile, student behaviour has gotten worse and well-being has continued to decline. Professor Valerie Walkerdine illustrates this dynamic by stating, “‘the nature of the child’ is not discovered but produced in regimes of truth.” In other words, school rules dictate what is deemed problematic behaviour. 

Deficit thinking extends beyond behaviour policies and individual prejudices; it is a powerful tool in systems of oppression, often underpinning how inequality is explained and perpetuated. Consider unemployment as an example. It is well-documented that marginalised and low-income groups face persistently high unemployment rates. Interventions to “tackle” this issue frequently focus on equipping these groups with support to “overcome barriers” through measures like mentoring or CV workshops. While these initiatives may appear beneficial on the surface, they are rooted in deficit assumptions: that these groups lack the skills to succeed and that it is their responsibility to address this “lack.”

At first glance, this critique may seem like a leap—or even overly harsh. After all, how can offering support be problematic? Isn’t helping individuals improve a good thing? But if you’re reading this blog, you likely recognise that we don’t live in a meritocracy, and inequity isn’t caused by biological inferiority—the root cause is systemic oppression. Solutions like mentoring, while “helpful” on an individual level, pose no threat to the systemic inequities that create these barriers in the first place. Instead, they reinforce the narrative that the responsibility for overcoming injustice lies with those who experience it, rather than addressing the structures that perpetuate it—hence the abundance of resilience building youth projects.   

Trained to think this way

Take trains for a moment. At some point, someone pointed out they are not accessible for wheelchair users and others. The response was to provide an individual “solution”: a temporary ramp for individuals who need it. While this might be “helpful” in the moment, the train itself remains inaccessible. The problem isn’t the wheelchair user; it’s the design of the train and the station.

Now think of schools as the train. Instead of addressing systemic barriers, we implement “workarounds”: special programmes and individual support. Once again, helpful in the moment, but they do little to create sustained change. For example, a mentoring programme for Year 9 “at risk” students does little to reduce the risk posed to the “at risk” students in Years 7 or 8.  

True equity isn’t about making exceptions; it’s about redesigning systems so everyone can participate fully. Imagine if schools were built with inclusion as a foundation, like the built-in ramps on buses, rather than patching over them.

More than a way of thinking

At Class 13, we use deficit thinking and deficit ideology interchangeably, but it’s crucial to recognise it as an ideology: a broad system of ideas that drives political and social actions. This is perhaps best illustrated by Richard Valencia’s (2010) six characteristics of deficit thinking: victim blaming, pseudoscience, temporal changes, educability, oppression, and heterodoxy.  

Here’s how these characteristics manifest in education:

• Victim Blaming: Reasons for school exclusions are predominantly focused on the behaviour of the young person. Rarely do educators or institutions reflect on how the school environment may contribute to or even create these behaviours.
• Pseudoscience: The behaviour that leads to exclusions is often pathologised. For instance, Black Caribbean* boys are disproportionately diagnosed with behavioural, social, and emotional disorders. These diagnoses perpetuate harmful narratives that blame individuals instead of interrogating systemic biases.
• Temporal Changes: Although the terminology and practices have evolved, the outcomes remain strikingly similar. Where Black children were once sent to schools for the “educationally subnormal,” they are now funnelled into PRUs (pupil referral units) or SEMH (social, emotional, and mental health) schools. The systemic injustice persists, merely repackaged in new forms.
• Educability: Early interventions, such as mentoring or family-focused programmes, are often presented as proactive solutions. However, these interventions carry implicit assumptions: that certain children, cultures, and economic groups are inherently less capable and require “fixing” from the outset, further reinforcing deficit ideologies.
• Heterodoxy: Many of these ramp-like “interventions” are widely celebrated as positive, practical solutions. However, much like temporary ramps at an inaccessible train station, they address immediate needs without challenging the systemic barriers that create those needs in the first place. These stop-gap measures are rarely subjected to critical scrutiny, allowing institutions to appear equitable while sidestepping meaningful change.
• Oppression: Together, these characteristics uphold a person-centred explanation for educational failure, shifting responsibility away from systemic inequities and onto young people themselves. This framing casts young people—particularly those from marginalised groups—as the problem to be fixed, while the system remains largely unexamined and unchanged.

What’s the Alternative?

Spotting deficit ideology is one thing; dismantling it is another. At Class 13, we propose two shifts:

1. Shifting Responsibility: Moving responsibility for change from young people to us as professionals encourages action. While we can’t change everything, we have far more control over how we engage, act, and create environments that serve young people.
2. Reconnecting to Purpose: Deficit thinking distracts us from the core values that brought us into this work. At Class 13, our four principles—affirmation, critical thinking, community, and democracy—help us realign our actions with our values. Among these, democracy often draws the most scepticism. But democracy is a natural extension of the other principles: How can you affirm someone without involving them in decisions that affect them? How can you foster critical thinking and community if these aren’t reflected in decision-making?

Applying Critical Thinking

To bring this to life, let’s focus on one of the principles: critical thinking. In every interaction with a young person, ask yourself: How does this support  them to think critically? But don’t stop there—apply the same question to your engagements with colleagues, parents, and partner organisations. This shift encourages deeper reflection, creating opportunities for genuine growth, both for young people and for ourselves.

These principles can also help engage reluctant colleagues or senior leaders. Encourage them to choose a principle they value from Class 13’s framework. Then, when they propose policies or practices, ask: How does this move us closer to the principle they value? This approach fosters constructive dialogue and shifts the focus from maintaining the status quo to prioritising meaningful change.

A call to action

Deficit ideology fuels inequity, but understanding it is the first step to dismantling it. Join us for The Big Short, our transformative session designed to help you uncover how deficit thinking manifests and learn how to challenge it effectively.

Sign up now and take the first step toward creating real, systemic change. Remember Change begins with facing it! —let’s face it together.