if you want to improve social mobility ...

[AlphaBravoHenryFoxtons]

bring back the direct grant, so parents can send their children to whichever school they want to, state or private. And if they supplement the direct grant with the pupil premium idea, there could be some serious inroads into social mobility. (So kids from not very well off homes could attend independent schools on full fees.)

Conserative party - just do it. And stop pissing about out-Ukipping Ukip.

^No.

I'd much rather all children had a good education in good quality state schools.^

An honourable aim, but there will always be a huge variation in learning styles and abilities, and the system needs variation to cater to this. Would our higher education system be better as it is (with huge variation and half the World's top institutions), or hundreds of 'good' local universities/polytechnics and no variation or choice?

Fostering the abilities of the academically brightest doesn't mean neglecting those whose talents lie elsewhere. We have to move away from this kind of binary assumption.

When were direct grant schools abolished?

I know the assisted place scheme went in 1997, and so it's too soon to assess if that had any impact.

Agree with posters above: not everyone does want to improve social mobility- some groups have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

I think Hedgehogs makes a good point - if 'social mobility' takes an individual out of the demographic & culture they were born in, putting them in a 'higher' social group, what effect does that have on their relationships with their parents, their siblings, the community they leave behind? Ime it can make the individual estranged from their past but never quite able to fit in with their new peers...

My child's bogstandard comprehensive differentiates beautifully which is appropriate at that age group.

I have nothing against a varied pool of universities and colleges at which point it is more appropriate to specialise.

Some people believe you can tell who the 'brightest' kids are at 7 or 11 and appropriatly fast track them, and to me this is the biggest driver of educational inequality. So many children written off, so young. When instead they could be supported in a mixed environment with the opportunity to move up groups if they make progress. That's how I was educated, and I believe in it for my children.

Let's face it, those in power don't want to improve social mobility.

It is possible that we have the worst of all worlds, the vestiges of a class system, which in many ways, is no longer relevant, with its attached notions, such as mobility, and introduction. But, in reality that system died a long time ago. And, yet, we still do not have a more open Antipodean or North American style system, where families can accommodate members with very different occupations (or at least many can) because there is far less of a stereotypical idea of the kind of job that a person should do. I've already seen that happen in my family. But, I think having a diverse family which still enjoys congregating might depend on the temperament of its most enthusiastic host (my mum) and on specific traditions. (The Americans have Thanksgiving.)

I think this thread might be more about income or economic mobility than social mobility as a whole.

Hedgehogs/Preciousbane - I would have thought having an intellectually equal husband/partner is much more important. But sad though that you feel adrift. x

The grammar schools led to social mobility not so much because they were so great, but because there was a large pool of middle-class jobs opening up needing bright kids to go into them.

Those jobs are in much shorter supply now (thanks to computers and automation and offshoring) so now we have a few highly technical jobs, a few traditional middle class professional jobs, some traditional working class jobs, and not much else.

Or, even better still, OP, something truly radical could be done like ensuring that all schools in all areas have the resources and sufficiently skilled staff to teach all of their intake well.

Somehow, the drive to academisation doesn't appear to have achieved that. Can't think why.

I'm afraid I don't know what the direct grant is (not in the UK) but I thought this comment on social mobility currently doing the rounds on fb was quite good - see www.buzzfeed.com/nathanwpyle/this-teacher-taught-his-class-a-powerful-lesson-about-privil?bffb

I think that having a much better standard of living for those on lower incomes would be much better - less inequality to start with would allow for more social mobility.

I wonder DoraGora if you have met a miner - I think it was possibly very different for shipbuilders, but I'm from a Welsh family, and education and a profession was very important - nothing wrong with mining - but teaching for example, was infinitely preferable for one's children. They knew that it was a risky, dirty job that made them ill.

I lived on Tyneside for five years. I can't list all the ones that I've met. Their communities were at the centre of everything. And they wanted their mines preserved for them, their families and their family's families more than anything. I can't imagine anyone fighting harder today.

Do people want social mobility? I haven't met anyone who openly admits wanting to move into a different class. My reading of things is that people want to have decently paid, secure jobs. These are in truly scarce supply.

Globalisation of markets has not been good for the working classes. Erosion of trade union movements, zero hour contracts, successive temporary contracts, privatisation of state enterprises, immigration leading to low wages, etc.

My family were from mining villages in the NE and now way did they want children in the mines, dirty awful dangerous jobs. They were the ones pushing children to state grammars in the 1920s and very proud of those of my mother's 52 first cousins including her who managed to make it to further education. My great grandfather was down the mines. It was horrible work. wonderstuff's words resonate more with what I have been told than DG. However I am sure we all agree that people want work although even there may be not - many a mumsnetter stops work as soon as she has children and marries the man who can afford that rather than seeks tow ork for a continuous period of 40 years. Perhaps most of us would rather not work unless we have to.

As for social mobility it is not too bad compared with some countries. My graduate son us currently a post man and my cleaner's son is on track to becoming a solicitor (on that LPC course). I think that's a wonderful illustration of social mobility in both directions. That is London for you and the hard work of immigrants. I think it can be harder in other parts of the country. Also downwards social mobility is never hard.

My brother went to a direct grant school in the NE and I remember one of our teachers campaigning in the 70s - save our direct grant schools. Those schools had to choose whether to go private or comp and his went totally private at that time.

I would certainly favour a £5k voucher per year to every parent to use at any school they choose which can be topped up by them. A lot of mumsnetters who cannot afford £10k a year school fees could afford £5k. It would be a very popular measure. Blair introduced it for nursery stage - we have vouchers against the school fees from the state when the twins were 4.

You know there are people using foodbanks right? There would be more people who could use private schools if they had a £5k voucher, but they would be the people who can already afford to move to houses near to outstanding schools anyway - people on minimum wage couldn't dream of finding £5k for school fees.

Although you may know of examples of social mobility, nationally it isn't happening very often - we are very immobile in the UK.

WRT the mines - one thing fighting hard for your job and your community, another thing to want your children to follow in your footsteps. Education was highly prized in mining communities.

The people in charge don't really want social mobility. So we won't get it. This country is riddled with class. It won't change.

Wonderstuff - but the people using food banks (for example) and others who need it, would get the direct grant topped up by a pupil premium so they were entirely fees free, including uniform, transport and equipment.

It suits Labour's narrative to suggest people are too busy using food banks and paying "the bedroom tax" to have benefitted in any way from more people in work and increased wages.

It's arrogant to assume less well off people wouldn't like access to free independent schooling.

Pupil premium at the moment is £900 per annum for secondary and £600 for primary, so hardly full fees it would be a massive investment - also the state sector would have to fund a high number of children with SEN but without the economies of scale with so many children in private education.

The evidence is that even grammar schools mostly benefited the middle classes and resulted in little actual social mobility, in the few grammars that remain there are very few children who qualify for pupil premium who qualify.

I'm not saying that many wouldn't want to take up the offer if it was available, or that it wouldn't be popular, but it would not support social mobility - it would increase private school up take for the middle classes and it would act as a subsidy for families currently choosing to send their children to private school. Private schooling currently caters for 5% of children it's ability to make any meaningful change to social mobility would be very marginal. Increasing investment in state education has far more potential.