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.

See! My theory is right! somethingnew's daughter proves it!

MP - I think surestart does a really good job. I think the problem is wider than the sure start remit. Children need to be exposed 'way out' signs all the education system and the home life all the way to through teenage.

all through ... even

Coming to this late, but MP your passion for Surestart reminds of some research which tracked children who'd had really good early years support - from parents, nurseries etc - and rather than it leading to higher levels of academic achievement (at primary secondary or tertiary level) the effect it had was to make them less likely to end in prison. So an exampe of early years education (not exactly the same as Surestart, I know) having a social impact.

I once had a passionate argument with my brother about when was the best time to intervene to improve the lives of children/young people. I feel the early years make a massive difference, maybe because it's not just about the child's phenomenal development at this age, but also the opportunity to support families and parents. So I think it's possible to consider the idea that it's not just Secondary schools or whether or not you go to university that can effect social mobility - early changes and support can make a difference to.

Oh and THANK you from me too Mr H! *runs off screaming and feeling very important as he asked me a question I rarely ever stray from my usual (safe) thread!

We need to stop kidding ourselves that we can turn all children from all backgrounds into academics/professionals by throwing more money at them and moving the goalposts ever wider for university entrance. Surely the money would be better spent on concentrating on a decent level of competence in English and Maths for everyone, and giving them whatever intensive support is needed to achieve that. Then, let's identify, early, the children for whom academic success will always be a long shot.

We should be looking for their strengths and celebrating them, giving them support and encouragement in learning trades/vocations, and funding small businesses to set up old fashioned apprenticeship schemes to take school leavers and actually train them and nurture them, rather than use them as cheap labour. Businesses could afford to do this if the government funded the student with a grant or gave them an apprentice's loan, in the same way they do with student loans. They stand a better chance of social mobility by earning a good wage as a plumber or hairdresser, for example, than they do by being on the dole queue as a third class graduate in HipHop studies, or whatever.

That would be money well spent in my opinion.

Also we should sponser motivational mentors who are 'normal' and unintimidating, that working class kids can identify with, (similar background, similar ethnicity etc) to go into schools and home in on kids from disadvantaged backgrounds (while they are young enough to listen) who have been identified as being bright but directionless. They should be saying 'Look at me, I am a Teacher/Accountant/Area-Manager for Tesco, self-employed builder (or whatever.) I have a house, a nice car, and a happy family. I did it, and so can you, because you are as good as anybody, and I'll keep telling you and hounding you until you believe me!'

We should be looking to insirational people like Jamie Oliver who is dyslexic, and Duncan Bannatyne who came from nothing, to support initiatives in schools to show disadvantaged kids that with a strong work ethic and some ingenuity/guts you can achieve, if not great riches, then at least self sufficiency and a sense of pride in yourself.

We need to STOP IMMEDIATELY with enabling working class kids to labour under the delusion that a realistic career option is footballer/rapper/model/actress/street dancer. Of course they may make it, someone has to, but they need to see that it a very, very long shot, and that working for a living is not necessarily guaranteed to be an extension of their hobby, not even necessarily highly enjoyable or highly lucrative. And fame is not a human right! However, they have a responsibility to themselves to aim to be employable in something, and self-suffiency and employment will give them greater self-esteem and more choices than anything else else can. I think that's a big part of the problem - the fact that many of them have no sense responsibility for, or control over their own destinies. The benign welfare/nanny state has a lot to answer for there....

Lastly, (and I really am going to shut up in a minute!) we need some tough love and a return to (some)old-fashioned values. With those two things in place we should see fewer disadvantaged kids in schools in the first place. At the moment we enable people to perpetuate cycles of disadvantage, but that's another argument for another day. Sorry to sound like Tory polititian, but we do.

Agree with everything except the last line, in that I agree we need to stop the cycles but don't beleive it can be done without penalising the innocents and I can't support that.

At Uni a few of us were trained to go into schoolsin the valeeys (so very low achieving) and be mentors, ostentatiously for Uni eduvcation but in reality my best workwasdone searching for alternatives for kids withmild sn and talents but no real chance at Uni because of their challenges (am thinking of a girl whose dyslexia was so severe she could not read, but whose aprents were set on Uni: in fact she was a stunning artist sowegot her a place on a BTEC that could gradually progress,with a reasonable degree of likelihood,to HND level but with practicalover academic focus and much work experience in place.

Ofcoursethe funding ran out.

Another person coming to the debate very late - I have a 9 month old dd and am already wondering what on earth DP and I are going to do about her education.

I was state educated until 11 when I went to boarding school. I suffered horrendous bullying at the state school for 4 years for being bright and 'posh' (the latter because my mother wore make up and we lived in a detached house). I was sent away to school because my father had worked hard and rose up the ladder far enough to be able to afford the fees, and because the local schools in our area were frankly poor. Id received an excellent all round education, was pushed because I was bright, and have managed to do pretty well in my chosen work.

DP was also bullied at his state comprehensive secondary school for being 'posh' and bright to the extent of being beaten up and knocked unconscious on several occasions. The school covered it up and his parents never found out until long after he had left. He was so badly bullied and was so unhappy that he basically gave up with learning and left school with no qualifications at all. He is a bright chap who could have done well in the right environment. I have to say I can't understand for the life of me why his parents didn't wonder why such a bright chap was doing so badly and look into it - mine certainly would have. Luckily he is very practical and so has built up a small building and electrical business.

Suffice to say - both of us would do anything rather than have DD suffer the kind of torment we did, day in, day out. So we are thinking hard about sending her private no matter what the financial burden, so that if she turns out to be bright and speaks with what might be called a 'posh' accent, she will not be made to suffer just for that.

Well said, Tiggy. Although I don't agree that you sound like a Tory politician

(I thought that Otter but anyway.... PMSL)

In agreement with most of TiggyR's comments . . .

I believe all young children want to learn . . . that we are all born with a desire to learn. This is why early years education is so very important. If the educational system has alienated a child by say, age seven, then the damage, so to speak, is irreparable, unless you have a teacher so inspiring they are destined to have a film made of their life.

So, we could try to stuff children full of everything we want them to know by age seven, or hook them with a developmentally suitable programme so that they stay interested in learning regardless of their home environments.

There is indeed a profound difference in the issues around early years education, primary education, and secondary education.

'I don't think you sound like a Tory politician.'

Really? I don't? God, that's a first! Not even the last line? I'm verging on being disappointed now. I must be losing my touch!

social mixing = social mobility

Playing the system (faith commitments, expensive catchment area housing and tuition) is most successfully undertaken by the 'haves' leading to less social mixing and therefore less social mobility.

All children deserve the right to know what there is to aspire to. Teachers alone cannot achieve this in the face of discipline problems and disaffection.

TiggyR can you start a political party ASAP and we will all join.
So much sense!

Absolutely right, thedollyridesout. It is not the sole responsibility of schools to ensure social mobility/aspiration. It's unfair and unrealistic.

I have very rarely agreed with a Tory politician, Tiggy. Last time was, iirc, Edwina Currie and the egg thing.

Does that help?

MrsBean's observations are spot on.

I work in education, currently to help teachers work with students who've been excluded or at risk of being excluded from school. These are kids whose prospects for leading happy and fulfilled lives are not good. But what helps is two things: improving these students' communication skills (and by that I mean talking and listening to other people NOT using computers) and training teachers to listen to these kids.

Mainstream state schools are so focused on getting kids to pass exams that all the opportunities to develop social skills have been edged out. In most surveys of employers the skills they look for in recruits are good communication skills, good teamworking skills and skills like problem solving. And we all know that being a good communicator helps us get on with people.

So unless kids are getting lots of opportunities to develop their social skills outside of school, and kids from disadvantaged homes often don't, they're not getting the sort of education that will help them improve their circumstances. Jenni Russell wrote about this in the Sunday Times very well when she wrote:

"The relentless focus on exam results has meant that many state schools have opted out of the activities that used to socialise pupils and give them the manners, self-control and teamworking skills that they need to progress outside. That has left a great many children, and particularly the most deprived, at a hopeless disadvantage."

To make sure that all kids, particularly those from lower income homes, get the chance to develop the skills they need to lead happy and fulfilled lives we need a curriculum that puts at least as much emphasis on students' developing their ability to speak English as we do on their learning a foreign language. This can only come from teachers who can model great communication, teach this to their students and then put talk at the core of their teaching.

Yay for Tiggy.

By the way, isn't it a bit sad that phrases like 'strong values' and 'high achievement' are even linked to the Tories in the first place?

Way back when, social 'improvement', 'doing well' and 'escape from poverty' were Labour rallying cries.

Bugsymum, and SNS, definitely agree with all that.

Oh dear. I had such high hopes for today. Today was going to be the only day this week where I finally got something useful done. Apart talking to John Humphrys and running for President, I haven't actually done anything of worth in real life. Again.

Anyway, mustn't let this thread get too chatty or off-topic. We need to keep cerebral/serious for the sake of social mobility through education. They are depending on us.

Interesting Bugsysmum.

It puts into words something I think I may have been aware of- we don't get out much becuase of the SN and cannot have people ehre so I have felt driven to arrange in particular for ds2 (low level SEN but no social issues) to get out into Cubs etc (in fairness Cubs bumped him up the list when they heard about his brothers, wonderful of them- Young Carers has a 3 years waiting list once you get the form,and I've been after that two years!).

Makes a lot of sense.

I did free school meals to grammar school to graduate so I managed the social mobility thing, as did my siblings. That was accompanied by a totally determined & aspirational mother.

Having seen my niece's school, aspiration seems to be the thing that's missing. Being clever in her comprehensive is downright dangerous. Anyone praised in class is shunned at break. Doing well is positively uncool. Bullying is rife and teachers seem to hide in the staff room unless actually teaching.

So give teachers back their freedoms, let them be interested in their pupils, let them inspire them rather than having to stick to a lead-lined, cement-coated curriculum this government seems to think is a good idea.

Until that changes, things won't improve. That's why I'm already saving for school fees.

My friend teaches in a secondary school. They allow children to stay after school to do homework because if they tried to work at home their parents would ridicule them. They never take books home because those books would never come back in one piece.

What do you do?

Kathyjelly, I could have written your post.

I went from social housing to grammar school, to university and managed the social mobility thing too. I wouldn't have said my mother was particularly determined or aspirational but there was an atmosphere of love for learning in our home. I agree that parental support in whatever form it takes is important.

Kathyjelly, you've hit the nail on the head.

I'm sure if you asked any of those parents if they want their children to do well at school and have a decent job one day, they'd all say yes as an automatic response. But they don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that whether or not that happens depends largely some commitment and effort on their part!