12 years of New Labour and Social Mobility

[Swedington]

is at its lowest levels since the 1950s.

I'm state educated and thanks to my schooling, all the professions were open to me. Doesn't anyone else find it disturbing that if I was to apply to medical school today, my chances of getting a place are lower than had I applied under Thatcher's government? This would be true for all of the years under Thatcher.

What on earth is going on?

True enough, but I still couldn't vote for Mr Potato.

(went to uni under Thatcher and parents didn't have to pay a penny- left with an embarassing and worrying overdraft of £7.78 caused by cashing a cheque wantonly in the student bar )

Has this come up in a recent news report? If so, could you give us a link? I'd be interested to read more.

"What on earth is going in?"

Please may I refer you to the thread re Comprehensive Education; methinks there may be a link! Unfortunately, I suspect things will become even more difficult for state educated children if state schools are denied the opportunity to offer the same qualifications as independant schools (ie the IGCSE). DH and I went to state comprehensives, then on to Oxbridge and law school. Somehow I can't see the same thing happening for our children if they remain in the state system.

yes, very very very disturbing.
I think the plan to get more people to go to university backfired horribly, for one thing.
The dumbing down of state education (thus widening the gap between state and private) is only one thing - the fact that with more people going to uni the govt can't afford to pay for university education like it used to is making a big difference too.
And I do think the abolition of grammar schools/increasing social exclusivity of the remaining ones is a big factor.

I think it's indefensible that social mobility is so low.

DH and I were both brought up on council estates and state educated at very poor comps.
We both went to uni, both became professionals.
Why are children in those situations no longer able to make the change?

Loans obviously put many off.
Low expectations, perhaps?

I don't understand this either. Maybe being on Xfactor or becoming a minor/major celebrity has taken priority over education? I see that dance schools/singing schools are booming with kids of all classes and parents v v v pushy to get girls esp into auditions. Maybe being a professional is not that attractive to the working classes anymore.
And yet with houseprices being rocket high, even despite this recession, I dread to think what would happen to my children if they didn't apply themselves/get the best grades/go to the best unis later on. Yes they might become the next Jordan lol but frankly the chances of fame are so slim that I'd rather they went on to be lawyers/doctors.
Emy

i think social mobility is going backwards because very many employers will not accommodate working mothers, and highly skilled women get thrown back into low grade jobs or end up staying at home. Without the money they would like to educate their children or send them to uni, or move into areas with decent state schools, how can social mobility improve?

This is the problem, some people imagine when their children are younger that they are going to get to the top universities regardless of where they go to school.

Many of them, will have lost the opportunity of going to 'top' university years before they are even in a position to apply because they will have been encouraged to do a selection of GCSEs in worthless subjects, or a diploma in something or other that they are told is 'worth' 3 As at A level (that was a good one I heard the other day from a friend). They will imagine that these are worth the same as a clutch of decent academic GCSEs/A levels because they are told so! The 'top' universities have a rather different, erm, opinion. It's really quite wicked.

It's too late by the time they are in Sixth form and thinking they might like to do an academic course at a decent university.

Those in the grammar and private system are, fortunately, told in no uncertain terms about which GCSEs are worthwhile and which are not (in fact the worthless ones aren't even on the curriculum).

So it comes down, as usual, to those 'in the know' getting the best opportunities.

The endless fame/footballers wives/instant riches mindset doesn't help matters either, whether the Labour government is actually responsible for that is another argument

It used to be that all your uni course fees (no means testing) were paid by the State, even as late as 1991. Why did this change? Too expensive as more went to university??

Here is the report from earlier this year, i have only just got round to reading it here.

And if you read the report, apparently there is evidence that things are getting even worser.

I feel really disappointed with New Labour. They inherited a golden legacy of a public purse from the Tories and look at where we are?

Nobody cares about favourite biscuits but we should all care about this. A lot.

Have just skim-read that report. The Sutton Trust is involved with my DCs' grammar school in a widening participation scheme.

It is an interesting but a very depressing read, although not surprising given the discussion on the other thread.

As you say, we should all care about it but many people are of the 'I'm alright Jack' persuasion and don't actually care about those less fortunate than themselves.

I fear reading that report will only make them even more delighted that they educate their children in the private sector because it means their children will be the most successful.

Which begs the question should more of us be making private school a priority for our children? Saving even before we have children for this etc?

I don't have high hopes things are going to get better before they get worse unfortunately.

Selectivememory - I'd like to think most people who use private schools remain invested in the future of state education.

I think standards have come down in both sectors since O levels were scrapped (GCSEs too easy) and with the introduction of easier A levels where you can sit modules several times.

I was the last year of O level and took an extra GCSE one year later..I was shocked at how easy the GCSE was in comparison.

It is not all about leaving school and going onto university, it is about the lack of work based skilled apprenticeships available to young people today. That has nothing at all to do with what class you are or whether you were educated at a state or private school.

selective - many of us with children in private school don't greet this news with glee.
Of course I want children from disadvantaged backgrounds to mobilise in the way I did.

Yes, there will be some who rub their hands together, just as there a state school parents who love it when an independent school child fails.

But these people are just child-haters and are not representative surely.

Cortina - I think many parents will go to huge lenghths to secure a place at either an indie school or a 'good' state school.

But that still leaves a lot of people for whom neither is possible.

I don't get this idea that parents (wherever their children are educated) want other people's children to do badly like it's some kind of race. I want to live in an economically competitive country, personally, and hence I would quite like as many people as possible to have the best education possible - am not keen on being overtaken by China and India.... Plus for me good education is about developing as a person, not just about getting exclusive access to the top jobs, so it would be no skin off my children's noses if other people get that as well!

Litchick/Swedington, I certainly didn't mean every private school parent (I realise you both are, btw) will be 'rubbing their hands in glee', certainly not parents like you.

However, I do think there will be an element of 'so what? that's exactly why I pay to educate my children privately' because that is why they do. I've seen it on these education threads over and over again.

I certainly hope that those in power do not think like that, but if you have a government full of people who have been educated privately or even in a grammar school, sometimes they fail to see the bigger picture (this was alluded to in the report I think).

I have friends who educate their children privately who seem to genuinely believe they are not buying advantage but that they are just doing the best for their child, which they are. I'm just going round in circles here but I know what I mean.

I am not saying they shouldn't educate their children however they like but that report really does back up the huge difference and outcomes between state and private education and what a massive advantage a private education gives children, whilst it is only an option to a very small percentage.

It is also not just about academic children. It's about children who aren't academic really but who are being fooled into thinking they should go to university when patently they shouldn't. It's a waste of time and a waste of money.

The government should be investing just as much money giving those children a proper and decent education in subjects which will help them to get an apprenticeship or a vocational career.

They seem to have lost the plot completely by under educating half the children and over educating the other half. God knows what they are going to do with everyone when they raise the leaving school age to 18!!!!

Why should independent schools and the parents who pay for them be blamed for the ineffectiveness of the government?

State education has more and more funding and yet still fails to improve significantly. This is not the fault of independent schools.

'A pupil in a state school needs to achieve two grades higher at A level to stand the same
likelihood of going to a top-ranked university as his peer in an independent school'

Quote from the Sutton report. Can someone explain what this means? The universities are not asking for higher grades. Is it just that teachers are not encouraging them to apply?

See, told you so

In that report the selective state grammar schools do very well, so it's not true that all state schooling is poor. But those selective state places are very often "bought" by moving to leafy Bucks for the grammar schools and paying to have Bill & Ben madly tutored for the entrance exam. So they are independent schools lite really. These days grammar schools v rarely educate poor but able students.

.

lazymum - I can explain that one. What they don't tell you in that report is that not all A levels are equal - even though they carry the same UCAS Tarriff.

So, state schools do general studies and an A grade has the same UCAS points tarriff as an A grade A level Chemistry. And Meedja studies A grade is the equivalent of A grade Maths. Etc.

The points system masks all sorts of silliness. That actually make the state schools appear better than they really are.