Education and social mobility - John Humphrys is coming on for a discussion, Fri 29 Jan, at 11.30am

[GeraldineMumsnet]

John Humphrys is filming a documentary about education for BBC2. He is embarking on a journey around Britain to meet parents, teachers and students.

His task is to examine the relationship between education and social mobility - why is it that education cannot close the attainment gap that exists between children from the poorest and wealthiest backgrounds?

Government education advisor David Woods has accused parents of being prejudiced against their local state secondary schools. Dr Anthony Seldon, Master of Wellington College, calls the current independent sector an apartheid system. Professor Stephen Ball, from the Institute of Education, concludes that grammar schools, parental choice and faith schools have all been responses to middle-class concerns.

John is coming to Mumsnet this Friday (29 Jan) at 11.30am to hear your experiences. Are you benefiting from parental choice in education? Is it at the expense of others? Does the current system put too much responsibility on parents to make the right choices? Is it too stressful? Do you feel you have to top-up your children's education eg home-tutoring, learning an instrument, employing a lawyer? Are they worthwhile investments, or necessities that cause resentment?

Please post your thoughts here. Thanks in advance.

To Sitdownpleasegeorge --- are you assuming ds will get into a grammar school?

My children went to a good comprehensive in a middle class area in the home counties. There were elections for the board of governors due to many parents keen to get involved in their children's education.

The neighbouring school catchment had alot of social housing and couldn't find enough governors.

I don't know how you solve this without bussing children!

I haven't read the whole thread, but it strikes me that there is a lot of discussion relating to secondary school provision, at which point, I would argue, the impact of education on social mobility is a moot point for many.

I grew up in Ireland, where social class divisions were not (then) so obvious as they are here. There were no choices. I went to my local school. The teaching was sometimes good, sometimes mediocre, sometimes exceptional. The majority of my peers from middle class, educated homes are now - you guessed it - middle class and educated; and those from the council estates are, well, still on the council estates. We all had the same educational opportunity, on the face of it.

When I first started university, I studied with people who had attended local secondaries like me, English comprehensives and a number of high profile public schools (Eton, Cheltenham Ladies College etc). The difference in academic attainment was absolutely minimal. I graduated first in my class, and went on to obtain another first class honours degree and a distinction in postgraduate study. The difference came after university. I now work in a public sector 'caring' profession (like my parents before me) while a disproportionate amount of the public-school educated from university are barristers. I live in a two-bed ex-council and don't drive, my public-school educated peers live in the leafy suburbs of major cities around the UK.

Teasing out why this division remains despite identical academic records at undergraduate level is undoubtedly tricky. Of course, with my academic record, I could easily have chosen the barrister route. I, too, could own a Landrover. However, it never seemed a serious consideration to me. I would never have thought (much less admitted or accepted) it at the time, but I naturally gravitated towards what my parents had modelled. What seemed possible, desirable, probable to me was, to a great extent, dictated by what I had experienced growing up rather than my educational experiences.

In the same way, the outcomes of young people I work with now with language and communication impairment are - far too frequently - dictated by background ahead of any other factor. I have been working with a 16 year old in care who, despite severe dyslexia and a significant language impairment, bowls me over with his insight into the literary texts he is exposed to, despite being unable to mechanically read himself. Some of his analysis of "Great Expectations" for GCSE coursework would not have been out of place in an undergraduate tutorial.. yet, the likelihood is, that despite his passion for literature (so unlikely given his background) the disadvantage he has experienced both through being in the care system and having a significant language impairment preclude the possibility of him ever progressing beyond GCSEs, let alone clawing his way up the social ladder.

There are so many factors to consider. It is not all about access to quality teaching, or even the structure of the schooling system.

The big issue with social mobility is surely that the distance that children need to travel between birth, when they know nothing, and being adequately educated for productive work in modern economies gets ever greater.

In the UK successive governments have encouraged greater numbers of young people to pursue education for longer, and a record proportion of school leavers now go on to higher education.

I'm not sure that this, very costly, exercise, is the right way to go about remedying life chances. More school, earlier in life, might give children from the least enriching homes a greater chance of performing better throughout school.

In France, were I live, there has long been a tradition of three years of full-time pre-school (ages 3 to 6) taught by fully qualified primary teachers. This at least ensures that all children have a chance of acquiring the basic language and social skills that enable to access literary and numeracy when they start school proper at age 6.

Interestingly enough, the most élite schools in Paris tend not to bother with much in the way of a the first year of pre-school - tacit recognition that children from the most affluent and educated homes don't need that early education?

very well said Cortina and sitdownpleasegeorge

Sorry, come to this discussion very late and haven't time to read the whole thread (though seems very interesting from the bits I have scanned), but I did want to put in my twopennorth, though very short and to the point.

I was a grammar school girl and would never have even dreamed of going to university if I had gone to the local comprehensive. I was the first in my family to get a degree and firmly believe it was the ethos of the school that helped me. We were constantly being told we were in the top 25% of the country (though it was never explained for what and it was expected that each and every one of us would go on to achieve great things, have a career, etc. Marriage and children were not the be all and end all for us.

I have now seem the current state eduction system from the inside and, if I cannot send my DD to a grammar school and cannot afford to send her to one of the local independent schools then I will seriously consider home educating her. I am that worried about her chances and I know how important it is to be taught how important education is. Unfortunately, the ethos in much of the state system seems to be that education is the end, not the means to the end. Constant testing and teaching to the tests (GCSEs included) means that it is very hard to get pupils to think beyond what they learn in the classroom. I tried, but my Yr 10s and 11s were bottom sets and I really did feel I was just babysitting. A couple of pupils in each class wanted to do more and they honestly were what kept me going. The idea that education could help them out of the poverty trap, or just help them to better jobs or positions in the careers they had already chosen, was a joke to them.

Off to give DD a wash and brush up now. Hope JH gets some good stuff for his documentary from all of us.

Well, Mr Humphrys, I think you will need to spend all day with the mumsnetters. I just wanted to say I am a life long fan of yours and this can only be due to my grammar school education, which lifted me from a council house environment to obtaining an MSc. Education is the key to everything and there are thousands of my generation who can tell the same story. Equally, there are those who did not go to grammar school and remained in the same place in which they were born. I'm not especially advocating the return of the 11+ but there has to be some way of ensuring that those from poorer homes have the opportunity of reaching their full potential.

Not enough is said about the schools where children from deprived backgrounds exceed national averages and perform much better than their peers in more leafy areas from middle class families. There are many such schools in London where children enjoy full wrap around care breakfast clubs and after school clubs of all types. As a parent who could afford private education but wouldnt dream of it I feel that the accountability of the state sector is far greater than that for private schools where staff are paid less (thus attracting teachers who want an easier life and who may not make it in the state sector)do not get the ongoing training and development that state school teachers get. The social cohesion that is evident in every good school helps to meld our society together and is vital for all our futures.
I have 3 children and 1 of them has now gone all the way through state education got excellent qualifications and is a fully rounded person who mixes easily with people of all social backgrounds(no grammar schools round here thank god) Rant over!

Upandrunning I would be happy to discuss further.

Having been the child whose parents didn't give a s**t, I know the importance of a supportive school. Whilst my school didn't deliver, I recognise the difference excellent teaching makes. I did have one teacher who really stood out for me and it mattered.

I believe a radical, politically incorrect shake up is essential to fix the floundering mess that is our education system.

Stop this 50% to HE, it delivers a warped expectation.

Stop annouced Ofsted inspections. Make it unannouced and give Ofsted some bloody teeth.

Honestly I have spoken to heads preparing for these inspections and it is utter b***ks. A staggering amount of time is spent putting on a show and that determines the mark which determines the funding, the schools status, its ability to attract the middle classes and so on BUT IT IS A SHAM!

I suspect for those engaging in this thread our children will be fine, we are interested enough to debate the issue but surely the issue isn't rocket science!

A stable solid rounded education, where children have the opportunity to explore outside of a solidly delivered academic three r's through music, art, sport etc is surely the aim? Where teachers have time to deepen their subject to suit the interests of the children, where the adverts used on tv to recruit teachers to inspire young minds are true.

Remove red tape, introduce discipline, self respect and manners as a given and deliver decent meals.

And watch out for those kids who don't have the right uniform, are missing books, who a fighting the system and look further to see why. Support them, they need it.

Finally before I slink into a depressed heap over it all will someone wake up to the globalisation of life. In speaking to a head of an excellent girls state school, she believes we have seen the biggest shift in education in that last 10 years due to globalisation and the internet.

Our children will be competing on an international stage even if they work in their garden sheds. There are growing economies who do believe in their children and their education and it will be ours who are left behind.

Never typed so much on Mumsnet before, but this has really got to me!

I agree with SDPgeorge's post. The education system is an oddity - where else in life do you get 'promoted' just because you are a year older? Kids should be held back if they have not 'passed' a year. Where is the logic in expecting sixteen year olds to sit GCSEs if they only have the reading and writing skills of an 11y.o.?

Here is a scary example.

Sitting in a meeting with a high scoring education borough who have six secondary schools.

Three are brilliant, enclaves of high property prices, engaged middle classes etc. Two of the other three are disasters (to quote the Head of Education).

They are going to run a dramatic experiment through these two and totally change the education model (I need to be careful as if I am outed I would get shot). The Head of Education privately belives this will be a disaster but guess what, the experiment is going ahead...

How many thousands of disadvantaged kids are going to be played with!

This is an interesting topic for me personally. I am one of 7 children, Mum was a cleaner and our dad mainly worked in factories. 3 of my sisters travelled to a single sex church school. Two went onto univ/poly (in those days) and worked as a teacher and journalist. The other one took A levels and works in an office environment. In fact all of us bar 1 now have middle class type occupations. So no I don't agree that it is not possible to be socially mobile. Although maybe we were just lucky.

I am not sure how well we would have faired today. in fact the primary school I went to is certainly not on a par with the school my dc go to.

Can't compare my secondary as it is now closed.

hahahiamawitch, brilliantly said.
So much of our education is a sham, it is based on smoke and mirrors. You are exactly right, the urgency is that we live in a globalised competitive world. Sleeping giants in Asia are rising, they are not experimenting with education, they are providing traditional solid quality education and their pupils are ahead of ours. If we don't wake up soon, the only area in which we will excel will be in trendy theories. The only thing left to us will be to try to sell these theories to the rest of the world, and not surprisngly they will laugh in our faces.

Going back to the OP comment about "Government education advisor David Woods has accused parents of being prejudiced against their local state secondary schools"

Can I have a big gggr at this. David Wood was not talking about schools generally, he was talking specifically about "dinner parties in Islington".
Education in London, like so many other things, is totally different from the rest of the country. What this man says is not relevant to the general discussion.

On this subject, can I quote a posting on another thread by litchick which I think brilliantly sums up the good/bad school debate:

" I too have always found it astonishing on MN how many refuse to engage with the idea that some schools are dreadful. That education provision is patchy.

If a poster dare say something bad many a reply will come back along the lines of 'well the school my Dcs attend gets 100%' or 'the school where I teach was voted best schoolin the universe.'

I'm like...well that's lovely isn't it...for you.

A bit like someone pointing out that half the world don't get enough to eat and my response is 'well my fridge is full.' "

To JosieZ.

Check my posting history re ds's abilities but yes I am assuming ds would be able to get in to a grammar school although I'm not pfb blinded enough to think that we won't need the peace of mind of having a plan B just in case.

Grammar schools didn't help people as much as everyone likes to think. Both my parents went to grammar schools in areas where only 20% of the population got a place. The education they received was poor and hardly anyone went on to University from the grammars. Both my parents went on to Cambridge but this was unusual.

The other 80% got left in their primary schools (which went up to 18) and probably felt rather disappointed all their lives. My Mum always says that the 11+ was just hideous for everyone.

My sisters and I all went to comprehensive schools and received a much better education. (and also went on to Cambridge)

To find out whether grammar schools really work now you can compare overall results in areas with selection (like Kent) with areas where there is no selection (like Cornwall).

Comps. can expect a lot. My sister's husband went to a very popular (prestigious)west London selective school and didn't get great GCSEs. As my sister says, if he's been in our comp. they would have made him get the As he should have done. Comps. can't afford to let the bright ones damage their results!

I completely agree with upandrunning that, in terms of achieving greater social mobility, far from extending parental "choice", we need to take parents OUT of the equation and start offering all children a decent education. Schools should be absolutely clear that their primary duty is to do well by children, not their parents. Mostly this will involve some degree of working with parents where possible, especially in the lower years but no child should be denied an education because they have crap parents or unemployed parents or lovely but vulnerable parents. Such situations should prompt schools to go the extra mile or even the extra 500 miles for that child, not write them off as incapable of achieving. Teachers and schools need to start (or continue, in some happy cases) meeting the needs of every child who walks through their classroom door, not just those with assertive middle class parents. Parental choice is a load of old bunkum as a policy, imo- in the few places where it is not a complete illusion, it merely skews the system even further in favour of the "haves" with obvious consequences for those already disadvantaged children who do not have someone to fight their corner. (Private schools, grammar schools and faith schools far more obviously and famously do the same thing.)

A lot of people educating their children privately seem to think that state primaries don't offer sport and music. That is just not correct.

Our local primaries all try and compete for the most theatre visits, visiting authors, resident musicians, den building activites they can offer. My dds primary play loads of rugby and does a weekly school run.

However, it seems that those who did badly from their state education then chose a private education for their children, but those who did well from their state education think private education is a complete waste on money. I am one of the latter.

Now, it could be that those who did badly in a state school were really let down by poor expectations but it might have been they would have done no better in a private school. E.g. the might not be as intelligent as they think!

I meet a lot of people who think they would have done better at a grammar, but when you speak to them, you realise that they wouldn't have!

Skegness, I find my self horrified by your suggestion. So what happens in the case where I disagree with the school about an issue regarding my child?
I have no intention of handing over my authority over my child's education. (Pry it from my cold dead hands actually . . . )

Again, we need to find a way to mitigate against those parents who don't give a flip about education WITHOUT infringing on the parental rights of those who do.

Sir Ken Robinson tells us that dance should get equal time with mathematics on the syllabus. And everybody lauds him, the applause is deafening, and people just can't wait for further pearls of wisdom. Surely we have now fallen through the looking glass?

zazizoma- I don't understand your point. Wouldn't you just go in and discuss the matter if you had a problem with your child's school?

I have Just this minute filled in my application form for primary schools.

In my area of SE London (which I have just moved to) I have realised that the local schools are completely skewed in terms of class because right slap bang in the middle of the area is a private prep school. When I did my research in to the schools via ofsted reports etc online I couldn't understand why all the schools were listed as having a lot of underpriveliged and disadvanteged children; there are a lot of council estates nearby, but also a lot of very large houses in a conservation area, and a lot of average-sized Victorian terraces. I now realise that all these people are putting their kids in the private school. This means that within a very small area the whole of society is stratified. I am disappointed by this as I was attracted to the area partly because I thought it was varied and integrated, by virtue of it being fairly inner-city, but with a wide range of housing. I fear this strata must persist from primary onwards, and children living on the next street will never ever meet their neigbours and contemporaries, as they will be living in a different world.

Just want to say I'm only page 21 of this thread so far, and I'm nodding 'Yes, Yes' furiously, with just about every post. It is clear that there is so much anger and bitterness about the nonsense that is the current system. I had so much to say but so far it's all being said for me. Particularly Custardo's long rant (spot on), Seeker on Grammars no longer doing what they are supposed to do, but the opposite of offering social mobility....Never mind John Humphreys, Ed Balls-Up should be reading this. Mine are in the private sector BTW, all started off in state school....I'm so lucky I can afford it, or I'd be breaking my heart.

Sorry, meant page 1, not 21!

Thank you Witch, for your revelations. I am with you 100 per cent. It is not rocket science. Claig, we are as one I think.

God it gets on my nerves.

"The children can't focus". Well why put them heads together on round tables (at 11 years old!) instead of facing the teacher?

"They don't understand times tables." Rote them anyway, Lord knows they might never understand but at least they'll have them and can use them.

"They can't spell." So correct them instead of worrying about upsetting them.

"They can't read well enough." So listen to them, as much as possible.

Expect something from them. Give them some tools and give them some hope and something to aim for.

We can't rely on the parents. Half of them were let down themselves and the other half don't care. It's up to schools.

Yes, I would, and I would also move my child to a different school is the disagreement continued. And I am also interviewing head teachers at a variety of schools, state, RC, and independent, to find the one I believe is the best fit for my ds.