Abstract

The paper re-examines the underachievement debate from the perspective of the 'discourse of derision' that surrounds much writing in this area. It considers the contradictions and inconsistencies which underpin much of the discourse -- from a reinterpretation of examination scores, to the conflation of the concepts of 'under' and 'low' achievement and finally to the lack of consensus on a means of defining and measuring the term underachievement. In doing so, this paper suggests a more innovative approach for understanding, re-evaluating and perhaps rejecting the notion of underachievement.