Can a Growth Mindset Close the Education Gap? Rethinking a Popular Solution to Educational Inequality
- Dr Joan Madia
- 6 days ago
- 6 min read
In recent years, the idea of a growth mindset has become a buzzword in education circles. Encouraged by compelling research and attractive promises, policymakers and schools have invested time and resources into teaching students that intelligence is not fixed — it can grow with effort. The goal? To level the playing field in education, especially for those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. But is this belief enough to overcome structural inequalities? A new study suggests not.
What Is a Growth Mindset?
At its core, the concept of growth mindset, introduced by psychologist Carol Dweck, is simple yet powerful: intelligence and ability are not innate traits but malleable qualities that can develop with dedication, strategies, and effort. In contrast, a fixed mindset assumes that intelligence is static and largely unchangeable.
Over the last decade, growth mindset interventions - sometimes as short as a 30-minute video or classroom discussion - have been used in an attempt to boost student performance, particularly among low-achieving or low-income students. The logic is intuitive: if students believe they can improve, they might try harder, persist longer, and ultimately perform better.
Studies have found that, under certain conditions, students with a growth mindset perform better academically. In some contexts, especially in the US, these interventions have even seemed to reduce socioeconomic gaps in performance. As a result, governments and educational charities across the world have begun rolling out these programmes on a larger scale.
The Promise: Tempering Educational Poverty
The allure of the growth mindset idea lies in its scalability and low cost. Unlike reforms that require systemic changes - such as funding redistribution, curriculum overhauls, or teacher training - growth mindset interventions are relatively easy to implement.
Furthermore, the psychological appeal is strong. For students facing economic hardship or social marginalisation, a message that their future is not predetermined can feel empowering. It tells them that their academic success is within reach — if they believe in themselves and put in the work.
Indeed, early studies (many of them conducted in the US) suggested that growth mindset interventions could help reduce inequalities in educational achievement. This led to widespread hope that such psychological tools could help close the persistent gap between rich and poor students.
But not all research agrees.
A Closer Look: Why Growth Mindset Might Not Be Enough
The problem with pinning too much hope on growth mindset lies not in the concept itself, but in what it overlooks.
Critics have pointed out that such interventions may individualise responsibility for success, subtly suggesting that if students fail, it’s due to their lack of effort or belief — rather than acknowledging the structural disadvantages they may face. These include poor school infrastructure, under-resourced teachers, food insecurity, lack of parental support, or community stressors.
More fundamentally, recent large-scale studies have started to challenge the assumption that growth mindset interventions are equally effective across different cultural and institutional contexts.
This is precisely what the authors of the current study set out to investigate. They examined the impact of growth mindset beliefs on students’ academic performance using data from over 200 schools and tens of thousands of pupils in England. Their question was simple but crucial: can fostering a growth mindset reduce educational inequalities?
The answer, it turns out, is more complicated than expected.
What Data Tells Us
Figure 1 presents a clear visual summary of the study’s key finding: students with a stronger growth mindset tend to perform slightly better academically, and students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to hold such beliefs. In other words, growth mindset partly explains why socioeconomic status (SES) is linked to academic achievements — but it does not eliminate the gap.
However, the data also show that growth mindset mediates the relationship between SES and school performance, but only to a limited extent (Figure 2). This Figure basically shows the proportion of total effect of SES on Math achievements that is mediated by Growth Mindset. That is how much of the SES gap can be explained by differences in Growth Mindset. These proportion mediated range between 0 and 11% of the Total Effect of SES with Australia, Brazil and Jamaica showing the highest values on the right panel. This shows that Growth Mindset does explain much of gap and it’s very context dependent since the proportion mediated varies between countries. In other words, the direct effect of SES on achievements remains significant, indicating that structural inequalities continue to play a major role, independent of students’ beliefs about intelligence.
This finding challenges a popular narrative. If growth mindset were a powerful tool for tempering educational poverty, we might expect it to offset the disadvantages faced by students from lower-income backgrounds. Yet, as the authors note, “students from disadvantaged backgrounds may face such considerable structural barriers that belief in the malleability of intelligence, on its own, cannot compensate.
Why Might This Be the Case?
There are several possible explanations. First, even if disadvantaged students believe they can improve, they may lack the resources to act on that belief. Consider a student who wants to study harder but lives in a noisy, crowded home without internet access or a quiet place to work. Motivation alone won’t solve this.
Second, school contexts differ dramatically. Some schools may reinforce growth mindset messages through supportive teaching, while others might inadvertently undermine them by prioritising test scores or offering little academic support. Disadvantaged students are more likely to attend schools with fewer resources and more stressed staff — which may blunt the effectiveness of mindset interventions.
Third, interventions might simply be too “light touch” to shift deep-rooted educational inequalities. A one-off workshop or online video may briefly boost students’ beliefs, but without sustained support, these changes may not stick — or may not translate into meaningful academic gains.
The Broader Picture: Educational Inequality Is Structural
The key takeaway from this research is not that growth mindset is useless — far from it. The study confirms that students with a growth mindset tend to do slightly better. But it also reminds us that psychological interventions have limits, especially when it comes to addressing structural inequality.
Framing educational inequality as a problem of motivation risks oversimplifying a complex issue. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds don’t just lack belief — they often lack resources, support, and opportunity.
In this sense, growth mindset should not be seen as a silver bullet, but as one small piece of a much larger puzzle.
Policy Implications: Beyond Beliefs
So, what should policymakers and educators take from this?
Use Growth Mindset Wisely, Not Blindly: There is still value in encouraging students to adopt a growth mindset — but it should not be treated as a standalone solution. Instead, it should be embedded within a broader, more supportive educational environment.
Avoid One-Size-Fits-All Approaches: The effectiveness of growth mindset interventions likely depends on context — including school climate, teaching quality, and available resources. Policymakers should resist the temptation to roll out standardised interventions without considering local conditions.
Invest in Structural Solutions: If we are serious about reducing educational inequality, we must tackle the root causes — from housing instability and poverty to unequal school funding. Psychological tools can complement, but not replace, these efforts.
Combine Interventions: Pairing growth mindset messages with academic support (e.g., tutoring, mentoring, after-school programmes) may help disadvantaged students translate belief into action. This combined approach is more promising than either component on its own.
Train and Support Teachers: Teachers play a crucial role in reinforcing growth mindset messages. But they need training, resources, and time — all of which require investment.
Final Thoughts: Belief Matters, but So Does Reality
The idea that belief in oneself can drive success is deeply ingrained in our culture. And to an extent, it’s true. But we must be careful not to let appealing narratives distract us from harder truths.
Students’ mindsets matter. But so do their environments, their schools, their communities — and the structural inequalities they face every day.
This study is a timely reminder that there are no quick fixes to educational poverty. Real change requires more than good intentions and catchy slogans. It demands that we face up to the deeper, systemic forces at work — and commit to doing something about them.