Civil Service internship. Only children of the "working class"

[Quirkswork]

If your child is coming up for 14 and interested in a career in the Civil Service and you have a job in a profession or that means you pay a lot of tax, I suggest you down tools now.

As reported in the Telegraph,

Civil Service internships will only be offered to students from lower income families in a bid to make Whitehall more working class, ministers have announced.

Only young people from “lower socio-economic backgrounds” will be able to apply to Whitehall’s internship programme, the Cabinet Office has said.

A student will be judged eligible depending on what jobs their parents did when they were 14. Students with parents who are receptionists, electricians, plumbers, butchers or van drivers would be among those eligible for the programme.

I didn’t suggest either was likely or practical. I was pointing out the school isn’t discriminating.

I was more focused on the senior jobs angle to be honest. And I wasn’t really advocating it as a policy, just agreeing that we can see there’s a massive inequality of opportunity going on which the internship is addressing in a tiny, tiny way. Why so literal?

I’m not policing anything. I haven’t said the poster was wrong to do it. I’m simply pointing out it is buying advantage and that’s something the vast majority can’t afford to do. Not sure where you are reading disdain. Or what Botox has to do with it, given it doesn’t have societal implications.

Lots of the things there aren’t things you can purchase.
All I”m saying is that private education is a way of buying advantage to which the vast majority don't have access.

But the biggest actual advantage to children is parental involvement in their education. Jobs at 14 is just a proxy for this. Perhaps we should remove children from their parents at birth so it is fair?

Or perhaps we could have one or two opportunities for those for whom this proxy suggests a lack of other opportunities? .
This scheme doesn’t make it ‘fair’, middle class young people still have more opportunities. It just tries to do something to redress the balance in one area.
So dramatic

Gosh the list is getting longer if this is truly to be a worthwhile policy
Needless to say Labour didn’t think this far

Hardly just ‘one or two opportunities’ having limits on the number of private pupils for all senior job…

Yes but advantages all the same. Should people be stopped for teaching their children a 2nd language from birth as it gives them an advantage over others? If I chose to pay to have a tutor teach a 2nd language to my child instead would that be unfair because I’m paying rather than teaching them?

I tutor my children in maths at home because I am a mathematician - is that ok because I’m not paying for it? Advantages are only bad if paid for?

the fact is that life is complicated, all families are different. Demonising private schools vs state oversimplifies things heavily. I personally think when you take into account academic ability and family background (both immediate and wider family), I think the advantages of private schools is much smaller than you think unless you go to Eton or suchlike as they operate in the sphere of high net worth individuals where there is a much larger degree of who you know.

Which isn’t what is happening, is it?
I was responding to your comment about parental involvement , assuming you’d gone back to reality and what’s actually going on. My mistake.
I’ll explain more clearly.
Instead of removing all children from their families at birth we could stop complaining about a small initiative to give some of the less advantaged a little bit more advantage in one tiny area of the employment market.

It was what you were proposing:

It’s 17%. Now we could discuss why this is (it’s not because of a massive switch to private at A level, although that is a factor) but leaving that aside, maybe that should be the limit then? Or say 20-25% to allow for outliers.

Do you understand the meaning of equity?

You’re just being a bit silly now. My daughter is bilingual but it didn’t cost me anything.
The fact you can tutor your child yourself is one of the types of advantage
middle class parents/children have (not always maths, no) which working class parents/children don’t have. It’s a good example of why opening access is a sensible idea.

I really don’t get why you are so worked up about 200 young people getting a little bit of help but think it’s totally fine to pay for independent education and it’s advantages.

genuinely confused.

But teaching your child a second language does not incur the same advantages to a child or the same disa dvantages to society as a whole. The stats show how damaging private education is for society as a whole and it needs to be dealt with robustly. Those privately educating don’t want that so are happy to applaud the faux signalling they know will not impact their children or the unfair advantages they have.

I’m not. I’m all for it. I think the method of parent’s occupation at 14 is too crude though.

Which stats? Please link them.

honestly I have never seen those stats so honestly happy I read the research if you would send

This scheme would have benefitted him when he was younger though, he would have qualified for the scheme. Would you honestly have been against it then if your husband had been the one to benefit?

I'm sure you support trumps ending of dei policies too op?

You also reminded me of a mum at my child's school who disagreed with a rotary club funded trip to the zoo for a particular segment of the school population as 'all kids would enjoy it'. Yes they probably would, but the concept of equity as opposed to equality did not register with her.

It’s pretty crude - but that’s just to get the applications. They can add nuance when sifting them and selecting those to actually do the internship. I assume, anyway.

Spirited you haven’t, they’ve been around for a while.

www.suttontrust.com/news-opinion/all-news-opinion/elitist-britain-five-times-more-likely-to-go-to-private-school/

Is it time for this cartoon again?
The scheme is aiming for equity. Some people on hear are moaning because their child, who can see perfectly well, isn’t getting a box because a box makes everyone taller.

I’d love to see those Independent stats too
Along with all evidence backing up @August3r sweeping statements on how
private school parents think.
Really Looking forward to seeing those

just a quick reminder this policy negatively affects the children of those whose parents don’t fall into the bracket of Labour perception of working class
This is hardly just about Indi kids ( tiny proportion in fact ) so perhaps it’s time to broaden our minds to the other 85% affected ( nb % by pp way back )

It’s not ‘Labour perception’. Parental occupation when child is 14 has been shown by research to be a good proxy for disadvantage/advantage.

Absolutely . This scheme does nothing to sort how poor this country is as regards social mobility and fairness and just makes things harder for another group banging their head against the same inequalities. It’s just faux signalling in an attempt to buy votes which will actually do the opposite as Labour have forgotten the electorate isn’t daft .