To think social mobility is impossible for working class /lower middle class kids?

[Cheeriosay]

And if it is possible how?! I feel the prospect of social mobility is at an all time low for teens/young adults due to the educational crisis in schools, cost of living crisis & lack of opportunity to move up in the world. This was relatively easy years ago either through education, marriage (or both).. Now it's not going to be as easy for teens & young adults who want to climb the social ladder.
I'm putting it bluntly, I'm sure some posters will be on soon to say these teens should know their place & not be getting ideas above their station but sod that!

Grammars increased social mobility for a tiny number of very bright working class children, and decreased social mobility for the majority of ordinary kids.

Which is whey the tripartite system fell out of favour with educationalists.

The only people who thing we should bring back grammar schools are people who think their children should go to one. Nobody argues that more children should be in secondary moderns.

Because by the time the next generation left university they had a staggering amount more debt and £7000 wouldn't have even touched the sides of the deposit needed. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp? Those very gains you have made in the housing market have made buying a home even more out of reach for younger people

(I bought in time too but take little relish in the gains because I can see how much harder it has made things for younger generations)

Parents and teachers must teach their kids the sky is their limit and they can be anything they want with the right hard work and application.

That's just not true though, unfortunately. Not everybody has the ability to do certain jobs, however hard they work.

It's reduced a lot. I also see more contempt from the haves to the have nots.

@verycloakanddaggers

When at what stage? Studies by whom?

How do comps help? Only recently ofsted was crying out that comps where failing top set students. The entire point of progress 8 is to hold comps to account that primary students in top sets enter a comp and fall by the way side... Because they are huge places that can't cater to all needs.

I've met many people who are successful and esp from the north from the modest to poor background : grammar school... Doesn't exist now.

*however hard they work.

Studies done (!!) people who are work hardest are those in the most boring jobs usually way lower than their potential. That's hard and tough and boring.

In the 70s we had high unemployment, economic stagnation, industrial decline, 4 day weeks, power strikes. Racism and homophobia were rife. Teachers would hit you. Very few people could afford to go on holiday, have central heating, drive cars etc.

domestic abuse wasn’t recognised, horrendous abuses taking place in children’s homes etc. very little help for lone parents

Yes it is an entrance exam school. Yes, there us tutoring, but we genuinely have quite a diverse intake - financially and culturally.

I have successfully climbed the ranks social mobility wise. Academically quite clever but that really is not enough at all. I am really good at reading people and getting them to do what I want. I can talk to anyone and make them feel as if there is a connection even if there isn’t one. Conversationally I’m very good, with writing not so much.

It’s a complete nonsnse argument. I grew up in a one parent family with a mum who shouldn’t have had children. We lived on a council sink estate, always waiting for the next giro. My future was to work at the big factory, where everyone locally worked. I could have done well in school and gone onto university, but it all went a bit pear shaped at 14. I left school with crappy results. I got a job, worked hard, climbed that ladder. Went self employed, have tried many things over the last 20 years. I’m a director of 2 companies, have 9 properties, a great husband, lovely son. I’m not loaded by any standards, but we live in a wonderful village & our friends range from every social dynamic. Literally from builders to lords. I’m happy to converse and can hold my own on any level. It’s not where you come from, but what you do.

@izimbra I disagree and again what studies... In low income families having hope and some to strive for was better than absolutely zero which is what they get now.
We need more choice in education not less.
Not everyone actually wants to be academically for sees themselves wanting to study?.

Many people are extremely creative with no where to go.

They are hands on with no where to explore those skills.. Comps are a bloody failure.

One of my extremely socialist uncles failed 11 plus, argued agaisnt testing and nasty exams.... Guess what.
His dc were boarding school and yet because he felt test were nasty he never encouraged them and the all turned on him.

A similar property to the one I started with in same location is now around 120k, not a massive jump from the 70k I bought for.
My starting salary in nhs was 17k, same role now starts at well over 30k.
So salary to price ratio is pretty static in the scenario I described.
The generation after me, in the same role, wouldn't have paid tuition fees, for health courses fees were only introduced in past couple years, and there is the apprenticeship route into the profession where no fees and get paid whilst studying, so would be better off than me,

The gains I made are also due to a combination of doing up 3 very run down properties in succession to move up the market.

Yes it's harder to buy now, but not impossible if people are willing to be flexible about areas, property styles and buy a property that needs work.

I am 30 and have just bought a large barn conversion in a gated estate in the country with horses out the back with my husband, I was born on a council estate to a single mum and we were so poor mum didn't eat some nights. A few of my friends from similar backgrounds have also done well, all of us found our salvation in education, we all work in STEM subjects with degrees under our belts. Our "rising" from poverty to middle class has happened over the last 20 years and we only just arrived here so it's obviously as recent as can be. No one gave me any money or a house deposit either, every penny has been my own. I moved out at 21 too so didn't live for free for years whilst saving a deposit.

I've always said social mobility is absolutely possible for everybody through education. Education gives us the tools to attain successful careers which is what lifts us out of poverty.

I've always found it terribly sad when children put zero effort in at school and their parents give them no encouragement or tell them school is pointless, these parents are often in poverty themselves. Do they not realise they are setting them up for a lifetime if struggling? Why don't they want a better future for their children?

Please define what you mean by social mobility.

This is a great point. I’m from a very working class background, now early 30s. Managed to get onto the property ladder twice (first property is a cladding scandal flat that is currently unsaleable to had to Ava for a second deposit to buy out house). I was earning £100k in the North by 30.

I was the cleverest girl at school and given lots of exposure to the opportunities available to me via gifted and talented programmes. I was the first from my family to go to University and those programmes helped show me that it was an option.

I’m now in a very middle class career that actively recruits with a social mobility angle.

I might not be where I am now if there hadn’t been active measures to support me in breaking out of a generational class cycle.

Your argument is that children who are achieving very highly at the end of primary should be educated in separate schools.

But according to the Sutton Trust, while "grammar schools perform better than other schools in terms of the proportion of high attainers who achieve the EBacc... the make-up of pupils in grammar schools is different from those in other schools, and that these differences can skew attainment figures."

'They are huge places that can't cater to all needs.' That's just nonsense. My son's comprehensive had large numbers of kids with clean sweeps of 9's at GCSE's and A*'s at A level. Many London comprehensives do. In fact the larger the school the better the outcomes for high achieving children, because they can set pupils more efficiently and have a bigger and more diverse teaching body with a wider skill set.

"grammar school... Doesn't exist now."

5% of children in the UK attend a state grammar school. 7% of children attend fee paying schools. 1 in 5 children attends a school which has some sort of academic selection.

The areas with the highest amount of selection had the lowest progress 8 scores for children in non-selective schools. In other words, academic selection damages the educational progress and social mobility of those children who don't pass the 11+.

How many kids do you think should be in schools with no high achieving children in?

When has Ofsted been crying out about comps failing bright students? Not talking about individual schools of course, but across the board? Not being sarky, genuinely interested to know if there's some report I've missed.

I know progress 8 is a blunt measure, but I thought it shows that many comps do very well by their brighter pupils?

I wouldn't say impossible, but difficult.

But why someone with low intelligence and no abilities for anything should be upward mobile?

But how do you make sure its diverse.
For example - 3 children in my daughters year

• child 1 - professional parents, received weekly tutoring, moderately bright - passed 11+
• child 2- low wage parents, aspirational, supported child to study with guides etc - passed 11+
• child 3 - as bright or brighter than child 1 & 2, low wage single parent, not aspirational, did not pass 11+

Whether we like it or not, tutoring and parental support has a huge impact on who gets in. So your intake may be diverse in terms of parent salaries, but probably similar in terms of parental attitudes. How do you as a school improve access to 'child 3' type

This is where I feel gramner school falls down, it doesn't provide an equal opportunity for children who are very able but parents are not engaged. Removing them isn't necessarily the answer, but there needs to be an admission system where tutoring doesn't give an advantage, it's based purely on ability.

"I disagree and again what studies"

"DfE data shows non-selective schools in highly selective areas have the lowest attainment. In 2022/23 they had an average Attainment 8 score of 42.3, and Progress 8 of -0.16, which is statistically significantly below the national average."

Plenty more research done by the Sutton Trust which shows that Grammars are socially selective:

"Less than 3% of entrants to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals – an important indicator of social deprivation – whereas almost 13% of entrants come from outside the state sector, largely believed to be fee-paying preparatory schools.  The average proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals in selective areas was 18% when the research was done, and is higher on average in other areas (those without fully selective systems) where grammar schools are located. By contrast, just over 6% of 10-year olds are enrolled in independent fee-paying schools nationally". https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/GRAMMAR-SCHOOLS-FACT-SHEET.pdf

"Comps are a bloody failure."

By what metric? My son left his excellent comprehensive last year with 3 A and A* A levels and is studying for an MEng at an RG uni. But according to you his school is a failure? How? Last year they sent 5 kids off to Oxbridge and the majority of kids got places at RG unis. That's not unusual for London comprehensives. His school also had an amazing music and art department.

So by what metric are comprehensives a 'bloody failure'? And a 'bloody failure' compared to what? At the hayday of the tripartite school system, most children left secondary moderns at 15 with no qualifications.

I don't mean to be rude but your assessment of child 3 as being brighter than child 1 and 2 isn't necessarily accurate, or they would have passed the 11+ too. You don't need to be aspirational to pass the 11+ you need to be very intelligent.

Then bought a flat for £70k in 2002 with my student loan, did it up, sold it for 140k a few years later, same with a small house, and we now own a house worth around 850k. No inheritance, no gift from 'bank of mum and dad'.

You bought a flat in 2002 with your student loan… that is the difference vs today!

There is no way of fairly drawing an arbitrary line and saying 'these children fall on this side, and these children fall on that side' when it comes to academic potential.

A child might have very poor literacy but be really really able at maths. Or vice versa. What school is best for that child?

A child might have huge academic potential but might have achieved very poorly at primary because of serious emotional or social disruption or poor physical health.

Selection at 11 can't be made fair.

You don’t have to be very bright. I am in NI- they did away with the old style iq test and now it is very much a test on learning not actual intelligence.
Personally I think using CAT scores would be a better method but pushy middle classes not so keen 😜