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.

jeanjeannie you and others have said that there was more social mobility decades ago. If that is the case, then what has changed - is it more than the end of grammar schools?

I think the comment about aspiration - and realistic aspiration (not popstars and footballers) - is well-made and, in many respects, the key to social mobility. Also the reliance on things because we are "entitled" to them stiffles aspiration and mobility. Many young people today believe they are "entitled" to practically everything while never actually working hard to achieve anything.

I think the other major factor besides education/upbringing/accident of birth is culture - and that's very hard for the govt or schools to work on. Even if parents don't expect much, even if the schools aren't great, if the culture of the community that the children are raised in is one which celebrates hard work, achievement, self-discipline and aspiration and then you add a free good quality education system into the mix, then I think you get more social mobility.

If hard work and achievement are mocked by other kids and parents rather than admired, if achievement of a university place is rewarded by crippling debt for those whose parents can't afford to help them, if self-discipline is deeply unfashionable, then it must be so much harder for children who don't have that lucky start in life of committed parents.

in my opinion there has to be a fair amount of aspiration from parents to want their children to do well and be well educated, that means supporting children through schooling and supporting the school

I think it has a lot to do with parenting but education plays a vital role, if a child goes to a school lacking in resources, with indifferent teachers, where the aim is to do ok rather that see the potential in each child and help them be the best they can be it just does not work.

I don't think that at the moment this is generally achieved, sadly. Catchment areas and the purchasing power of parents seem to be the main criteria for the kind of education a child will get.

Tiggy very true indeed. But that comes back to options doesn't it?

DS1 is disruptie for reasons outside his immediate control; if I had the option to send him elsewhere I would, so others would benefit as well as him.

TiggyR that's a very good point. But can these schools really be considered good if there IS that sort of bullying? Or might it be that the parents are over protective/ over anxious?

I always feel very ambivalent in these discussions. I wonder really what effect pre-16 education has on children who are basically bright. I went to crappy state schools and did nothing vaguely outstanding or interesting until I went to college and from then on, I got straight As and a first class degree. Couldn't afford to do any further study though.

I suppose I was quite bright and spent my school years feeling very bored. I always feel I should get fired up about education but it just makes me feel despondent. I'm just not sure how useful a great deal of that education is, in the long run. (I can't be the only person with a GCSE in French who doesn't even understand Eddie Izzard sketches? I doubt I could even buy myself a fecking billet in a crisis.)

And these days, when you hit 18 you are dependent on either getting into debt or having rich parents. Those are your choices at the end of the day. You can have the most brilliant education but does it really matter when the average graduate is going to leave with £30k worth of debt?

Basically, I think that most 'bright' children will be "fine" in a state education.

So I suppose I do wonder whether somethingnew is right and money should really be spent at a pre-school level (schemes like SureStart really DO excite me - although I'm sure it's going to be ripped to shreds come a change of government).

This is rambly... sorry...

I wish that this wasn't clashing with Tony at the Chilcot inquiry!!!

Following on from an earlier comment about schools only seeing children for 25% of the time, isn't the important issue the benefits the children get from that 25%? I was brought up in a poor inner-city area of London, our school was considered to be mainly made up of under-privileged children.

We had (mostly) brilliant teachers, working hard to make sure we did well, and the school was heavily subsidized so we could all go on trips and holidays. We had a reunion this year, nearly everyone had ended up OUT of that area, all had pretty good jobs and were firmly middle-class.

Two factors that play a part in social mobility that are not related to education are snobbery and job opportunities after university. Many highly sought after jobs are based on work experience. If a young person is from a poor or modest background they often cannot afford to move to a city and support themselves for the duration of an unpaid position.

Snobbery is still an issue. Education does not eradicate accents or regional culture, and nor should it; such factors can prevent people getting ceratin jobs. We need to change the Equality Act to give the same protection to regional working class groups as we give to other minority groups.

The issue of unpaid work experience also applies to postgraduate degrees, which are becoming more important as the value of an undergraduate degree is reduced.

John,

Education plays a HUGE role in social mobility. If you're in the right school, you get to know the right people. You go to the right university, you meet even more of the right people, you get the right job, etc etc.

It's especially true now when it seems the only route into some professions is via uunpaid internships. To get those internships, you or your parents need to know the right people. And your parents need to be wealthy enough to fund you for a year.

I left school in the early 1980s, when only those in public schools (on the whole) took a gap year or stayed on another year to do the Oxbridge entrance exam. I tried to swot for Oxbridge at the same time as doing my A levels - I just couldn't do it. There was too much work. OK, I know that many state-educated kids managed it, but I think you needed to be EXCEPTIONALLY clever to do it in those days. I could have easily done it if I had't had to concentrate on A levels at the same time. (Not saying I would have got in - but I could have coped with the swotting!)

It's not all about education - a good university place doesn't necessarily equate to top job.

Again, you're likely to know from your personal background about the kind of career you'd like to do, and you're likely to know people who are doing it - again, maybe friends of parents - who can advise you on how to get in to that area.

I suppose in terms of social mobility, that I and my siblings have benefitted - in that we are the first generation of our families to go to university. But we also had our fees/grants paid for. Would we have gone to university if that wasn't the case? I doubt it.

John - I do think that education offers (or at least should/can offer) opportunities for social mobility but it isn't the only answer. As long as there remain Old Boys networks, and as long as Persephone can get a work experience placement at the BBC because her daddy is friends with so-and-so then some (most?) children will be at a disadvantage.

I do believe strongly however that it is so much harder for young adults to establish themselves (with a secure job, somewhere to live) if they are not "academic" and their families can't help financially, than it was 20 years ago. I don't know what the answer to this is though, nor even if it lies in education.

This aspiration issue is interesting isn't it? What is it do you think that makes one parent want their child to do better than they have done and other parents not?

Agree Morningpaper - I think everyone makes too big a deal about education!

Also, does anyone ever think that people might not want to be high achievers.

I've got a great degree but didn't want to spend my adult life working desperately hard in the city.

So, I've used my degree to go down the self-employment route. Much more fun!

It's a hard question and I'm sure it would be like finding the golden ticket if we found the answer! Grammars did go some way - my father and his siblings all passed the 11+ BUT unless it's implemented across the uk and the national circculum supports it then it'll just end us a cheap alternative to private as it is here in Bucks. I'm be happy to see it implemented nationwide and ensure that the secondaries were equally supported.

There was more than one way to move on decades ago. Apprenticeships were supported and without wanting to cause controversery there was within the poor families perhaps more of a work ethic (oh I know that sounds awful) I just feel many people I meet on the sink estates (help out at Surestart) just can't see education as a way out. However they often don't want a way out - they've become institutionlised. Surestart basically doesn't even begin to reach most people who need parenting help. One surestart worker i met said her thoughts were you had to link education/parenting skills to benefits. (apologies for spelling -small child wailing!)

thre's also the issue that 'education' is not just 5-18, or 5-21. More people are chooinsg to become mature students, or have a career change later on. A mediocre primary school doesn't mean your learning is scuppered for life.

And yes there is an argument for parents being over-anxious. I worry about my sons' future schools, but in reality they have 2 graduate parents who talk to them and read to them and they live in a middle-class area. They are probably going to be fine. And if the system fails them we'd take them out of school and home ed. If I had children with SEN or lived in a sink estate I'd really have reason to complain.

My husband and his brothers had a working class up bringing. They lived on a council estate and their father was a builder, their mother was a housewife who also happened to be disabled.

Their family was close knit, and the children were brought up to respect their parents. eg. no swearing at home, no bringing home girl friends.

Brother 1 went to the grammar school, brother 2 to the secondary modern and dh was educated a comprehensive school (grammars had been phased out at this point). Dh was the only son to go to university. His older brothers were expected to go to work when they left school and to contribute financially to the family.

All three brothers have gone on to hold professional jobs, be home owners etc, and would now be judged to be middle class.

However, dh does believe that if he was young today it would be harder for him to break out of his social class. Teenagers are now generally less deferential to their parents, and discipline in schools is far more lax than it was 30 years ago. AT dh's comprehensive children would be expelled for fighting and suspended for having chewing gum. Children were not allowed to back chat teachers, which enabled a bright child learn if he was determined to.

Social mobility is now not impossible, but much harder because educational inequalities work against children from poorer backgrounds.

Sorry, in my rush to post I really didn't sort out my concluding paragraph in answer to John H's question. I'm trying to say that there is something about faith schools and other high performing schools that can be replicated. The model I perceive is not one of selectiveness (on basis of faith or IQ or wealth etc), but analysing all the factors that make the better schools work, and creating a fully integrated system to replicate the relevant factors.

Family level respect for education is a vital component to revive educational standards.

Faith schools demonstrate the importance of the family/school interface. Families of faith often care and have values. I so much believe that all families, with and without religion, should benefit from an education system that sets people up for life. The positive repercussions for the nation of getting education right and integrated etc are so massively huge across the board. Citizenship, family policy etc would fall into place so much more easily.

Builde Amen to that!

Again I agree MillyR.

The thing is,we need to know where we are aiming: if all we want forour kids is a medical degree from UCH, then our take on everything will be vastly different from someone who is out to ensure their child gets a job they like and is sufficient to pay for their needs without great hardship. If we focus on that rather than the upper side, then can start to see beyond Uni etc , and look at widening access to vocational studies, training etc.

Because with all the will in the world, a great many of the people I grew up with wren't being blocked from Uni,but simply not interested.Decent vocational access however may well have changed their lives.

I agree Otter about family having connections and financial help... After I graduated, I REALLY wanted to work for Oxford or Cambridge Uni presses - I really wanted to go into publishing. But both places basically told me that (and one actually said: "Especially as a woman...") I would have to work unpaid for a few months. I just couldn't do it! I couldn't move to a new city and work unpaid! I had debts and nothing to eat and nowhere to live. So I had to move into my siblings house in Gloucester and get temp work instead. It's not easy to have choice when you can't afford to eat.

I'd say its important to remember that just because a parent doesn't have aspirations for their child to do well academically doesn't mean they don't have aspirations for their child to do well and be happy.

It depends on what they value. I value education but not above other things I want for my DD. If a parent doesn't have a good experience of the education system themselves, or they don't see their child getting something out of going to school perhaps they'd rather look for other ways to be suceed.

I think part of the problem is when older parents hark back to the times when families lived together, several generations in one house, and all looked after each other. Although society has moved on, there is still an instinct to keep your children close. Some parents feel threatened if their children seem to be 'getting on' at school, and would prefer them just to plod along doing the bare minimum. That way, the children won't be tempted by the bright lights, big city.