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.

In a way I don't want to claim that things have been ever thus because it suggests that I don't think there's any point in trying to change things, but I believe that there have long (always?) been parents that actively do not want their children to do well at school.

Perhaps I've watched too many 60's kitchen sink dramas. I really wish I'd asked John if he remembers families like this. Are there any 40's/50's born MN-ers who could comment? Perhaps I should start a new thread.

The thing is I wonder, if by assuming this to be a recent phenomenon that we might be missing a trick.

Unfortunately I could'nt join in the very interesting discussion this morning as was at work. I think social mobility means being able to get into careers according to your ability irrespective of your birth origins/family background and education is the key to this.

However nowadays children who have been born to poor or disadvantaged parents but have got the innate academic ability to do really well at school, will have less chance of fufilling their full potential because of the sink schools most of them will attend. My dc attend an inner city primary where the secondaries they feed into achieve an average of 30% passes at gcse. We have the means of moving to an area with better schools but there are some very bright children in their classes who live in poor households and this will not be an option open to them.

I really feel for these children as I was once that child, but because my school's catchment area (pre parental choice) took in both middle and working class areas I ended up it the top year set and my peers were motivated to learn and we had some inspirational teachers who really loved teaching.

The only people who have a real choice of schools ime are religious rich ones living near a grammar. One of my friends joked that on Friday they attend the mosque, saturdays the synagogue and sunday morning catholic mass and in the evening the anglican eucharist to ensure her dc were eligible for all the faith schools in the area! Also because I'm from an immigrant family I tend to be less concious of the british class thing which can hold people back with the feeling "that it isn't for the likes of us".

I believe ending parental choice, restoring discipline and respect for teachers in schools, ensuring catchment areas are social economically mixed and reintroducing setting by ability in school(the able being given really challenging work and the less able groups having fewer children in each class so they get the help they need)would all help improve the educational standards in schools thus ensuring social mobility.

Otter I was a 60's born child, went to a crap comp where I wouldn't say most parents didn't want their kids to do badly, more they couldn't see a point in them doing well. Most boys followed their Dad's down the pit, most girls were destined to be either home with kids or working in the clothing factories like a lot of the Mums. There were 250 kids in my year and a grand total of 16 of us in the upper sixth, of which 9 went on to university/poly, says it all really. A lot of parents didn't see qualifications as necessary or important. A lot of kids were just biding their time until they were old enough to leave school & get a job. Of course the pits and factories have since been closed, so I often wonder where they've all ended up now

I don't think this is a new problem no.

I count myself very lucky that my working class parents supported and valued education as a way of giving me choices. They didn't care what I did so long as I was happy, they just wanted me to have the widest choice of options open to me. Also from a young age my Mum instilled a love of learning about new things, be it about trees, flowers, baking, sewing, reading or whatever. She taught me so much, I just didn't realise it at the time. I hope I'm doing the same for my kids

Any school with a bad reputation will reinforce social divisions because of a snowball effect. I really don't want to go private, and so I'm ashamed to say we've moved to a different catchment to avoid a particular school. But one reason why I wanted to do that is that everybody else who cares enough and can afford to do it, does that too - leaving that school with a much less comprehensive mix of students, and problems with attitude, bullying, violence etc.

If all the middle-class parents and parents who are concerned about their DC education didn't move away or go private, that school would have a better mix and my DC would probably be OK there. As it is, coming from a pretty intellectual, nerdy family they would have a hell of a time fitting in. The likelihood of severe bullying is high and I will do what I can to avoid that - because it happened to me, as an academic, middle-class child in a very deprived area, at a comprehensive where anyone who could had cleared off or gone private.

Now, in a posher area, my DC will have a chance of being at a school where at least some of the other children are also academically inclined and they may meet some like minds. Yes, it's terrible that I've just added to the snowball effect and social division but the alternative is throwing your nerdy, sensitive child to the lions, or that's what it feels like.

I do know that it's not the fault of bullying, violent, non-academic kids that things end up like this - they too could enjoy learning and use education for social mobility if they'd been given the chance. But they can make life hell for swotty kids, and I speak from experience.

In fact, at my school I was even pilloried and mocked by some of the teachers for being a swot and doing well. Not all and there were some fantastic ones who helped me a lot, but what does that tell you about the atmosphere in some schools?

Agree wholeheartedly about churches not accepting state money to run schools. Having seen church schools operating completely independently of the state in the US, I know it's possible for the schools to do this and thrive, (or fail and close -- but why should a school that has lost the confidence of parents stay open?) and I also believe it's better for the schools and for the state if both coexist separately.

How about eliminating catchment areas completely and allowing all schools to become completely sensitive to 'market forces' the way parochial schools in the US tend to be? (yes, I know they charge fees and teach religion and so don't appeal to everyone, so not everyone in the 'market' for education is a potential customers.)

This is typical media propoganda.

Factually Britain's state education systems have been under funded as a matter of policy since the 80's.

And this is because British workers pay the lowest income tax rates in Western Europe.

What is social mobility though?
Is it determined by money, status, profession or education levels? I think all these have become a bit jumbled up recently.

Someone who will have recently become say, a doctor or a lawyer, unless their parents fork out for both their degrees AND house costs, will effectively be living in poorer areas, in smaller houses.

I know young doctors who can only afford small terraces in rather deprived areas as they are still repaying their university costs AND cannot afford huge mortgages on their salaries alone. So the question is where will their children go to school? And what will their outcome be if we were to base it on this factor alone??

To be wealthy doesn't necessarily mean being educated anymore, does it? I agree with most of the arguments on here but just thought I would give another perspective.

Emy

Spacehopper5.I think if you are very wealthy it is easier to use your children as a 'social experiment' or to buy a house in an area where there is a good state school,or you may have contacts through your own jobs and education that will be able to help your children when they are older.plus you can always help them out if they need it.Social mobility is about who you know too.

I missed the whole thing.

This is a bit extreme but I think this sort of thing (see below) is at the core of failing social mobility. If you learn about this in school but can't read -- what is the point? You fellows with motivated parents will get on, but you won't.

excuse the source -- and it is only a recommendation

this is instead of listening to children read

your fellows

On the one hand you're not a good parent if you "don't do the best for your child" (in my (aspiring) middle class environment that means paying if you can afford to.)
On the other, as good citizens we'd all like to see more social mobility/less entrenched poverty/less social inequality, wouldn't we?
But the truth is many parents I know don't want their kids to mix with "local" kids irrespective of how good the local state school is. They'll hesitate to admit it in front of me (my kid is mixed race) but the last thing they want is to send their (white) child to a predominately ethnic school - however brilliant its OFSTED report.
So you have an unofficial racial segregation operating here in inner London - 98% black schools in a roughly 50/50 residential area. All the white kids are being sent across town (including incidentally the kids of our local resident MP (Lab))to private or selective day schools.
DESPITE, I repeat, excellent local Ofsted reports (good or outstanding, virtually all). The truth is, "Nice" parents just don't want their kids mixing with the locals. And no amount of "Value Added" credit to a school will persuade them - on the contrary. I've a feeling, high "Value Added" marks is a sure sign the local school is full of the "wrong" sort of kids!
To which my answer is, why live here then? And many do move, of course, to all-white suburbs when their kids reach a certain age.

I have to be honest with myself and admit I don't want my child going to a school where almost everyone else is from a deprived area/background that doesn't value education/etc. It's not about race or localness, it's about being bloody terrified of kids who are brought up with violence, an anti-education viewpoint, a tendency to attack anyone who doesn't fit in with them.

I am not worried about "bad influence" or my DC "mixing with the wrong sort" ( - in fact I think it would be great if we had a truly comprehensive system where a typical school would be a good, caring school with a genuine mix of kids from all backgrounds rather than one prevailing culture). What I am worried about is my somewhat precocious, sensitive little boy, who likes flowers and butterflies and is rubbish at football, getting beaten up or ostracised in a place where he's supposed to be going to learn stuff and have a constructive time.

That matters because if school is somewhere where you are miserable and can't feel safe, then that will damage your learning and development and happiness. I do feel bad about it but when it comes to the crunch I'm going to protect my child. So, since we can afford to move, yes he's going to go to a school with a "nicer" (read posher, more educated, more pro-education) catchment.

Yes - well my son is 2 & so far also a "sensitive" little boy. Of course I won't subject him to bullying and torture! But I am hoping/expecting the local (outstanding) primary, and later on secondaries, to do him proud. At any rate I will be giving them every chance, mainly because I positively want him to be a "local" boy, and to know, share and be proud of his multi-ethnic origins.
Just because virtually all my son's classmates will (also) be black or brown does not mean they are anti-education; on the contrary actually, from what I hear. That is why I can see little excuse for "white flight".
There IS a lot of white racial prejudice out there, unfortunately, based on ignorance in my view. Old friends of mine (from leafy home counties, where I grew up) look horrified when I mention that I will be sending my (brown) child to a virtually all-brown school.
"Actually, it's a very good school", I add. They quite obviously do not believe me.

RE: that link, I think it's perfectly acceptable, in fact a good thing, for children to be taught to consider and compare secular belief systems alongside all religions, not just the majority susbscribed ones. But not instead of reading, obviously, and any kind of RE should only be a supplementary subject.

But back to the main point, and the question 'What is social mobility anyway?'

Disclaimer: Very long post coming up, apologies in advance!

I watched (on sky-plus) the last episode of Kirsty Young's excellent three parter on the changing face of the modern British family, last night. Its focus was on the 80's and how the new boom in social mobility went hand in hand with rampant materialism and a soaring divorce rate.

Having this discussion fresh in my mind, some obvious connections to the social problems of today hit me:

1. The fact that the Trade Unions Movement had been so successful in improving pay and conditions for workers in heavy industry and manufacturing throughout the sixties and seventies, and due to the post-war boom in employment, many of working class people were, by the early 80's feeling very comfortable compared to their fathers who'd been in the same jobs.

2. Thanks to Thatcher, working class people were suddenly buying their council houses, buying shares and turning them around for quick profit, holidaying abroad, getting highly paid jobs in city institutions (in London and other major cities) where previously they would only have been tolerated as messenger boys and back office clerks, and were being encouraged/enabled to start small businesses in an economic boom. This movement had a huge impact on the general expectations and aspirations of the traditional working classes.

A whole new, enormous lower middle class stratum came into being as a result.

Just musing/theorising now, but bear with me, I'm going somewhere!)

'New Money' types have always been famed for their love of conspicuous consumption, (unlike the (old-style) lower middles and middle-middles who were always more inclined to prudence and modesty. It's no coincidence that this era went hand in hand with the boom in demand for expensive trainers, designer clothes, foreign travel and ownership of previously exclusive branded goods, such as Rolex. Any upwardly mobile type worth his salt in London in the 80's had to have one! And the more working class his background, the fiercer the desire to flaunt his new found wealth. When it all went tits up, with the 89 recession and housing slump, Black Monday, plus the closure of the manufacturing/heavy industries elsewhere in the UK, not only did many WC people find themselves back where they started, with a 'beer pocket' but they had unfortunately, developed 'champagne tastes'. Not literally, obviously, please don't bombard with accusations of naivety about miners' wives quaffing champagne, but you know what I mean!

It is undeniable that so many who are considered lower-middle class or middle class today, have actually come from very working class roots, as recently as the early 80's. So the new working class appears to be more of an underclass in comparison.

I wonder if the pressure/expectations of working class kids today, to have access to the same showy expensive consumer goods and designer clothes that they see other more well-off kids having is so overwhelming that they can't see beyond the 'instant gratification' route. To commit to higher education just seems so alien a concept, and such a long drawn out process involving more commitment, self-sacrifice and self-discipline than they can muster/comprehend.

Yet without a willingness to give any commitment to education/training at even the most basic level, many of the unglamorous manual and blue collar jobs they can realistically aim for are being paid less than a life on benefits, supplemented by a bit of 'cash in hand' ducking and diving. As I said before, the real problem with social mobility remains that we enable people (through the welfare state) to settle for very little, and have low expectations of themselves and little sense of responsibility for their own destiny. Of course I do know that that there is a genuine lack of jobs especially outside the southeast in manual/blue collar sectors, but even so....

Custardo, Britain's State education systems
have been underfunded for years primarily because the British electrate continue voting for low income tax governments, we British do pay the lowest income tax compared to the EU populas

////Thanks to Thatcher, working class people were suddenly buying their council houses, buying shares and turning them around for quick profit, holidaying abroad, getting highly paid jobs in city institutions (in London and other major cities) where previously they would only have been tolerated as messenger boys and back office clerks, and were being encouraged/enabled to start small businesses in an economic boom. This movement had a huge impact on the general expectations and aspirations of the traditional working classes////

At the same time as Thatcher allowed edxisting council houses to be bought by long term tenants, she, Thatcher, stooped building council houses thereby depriving
future working class kids the same opportunity stepping stone to buying a house.

Thatcher was an opportunist.

//////The facts are these: right now, this country's education system is in a mess. The state system has been dumbed down to a point where teachers are forced to let the brightest pupils 'get on with it' while they spend all their time getting the low achievers up to speed to meet targets. Do I want the state system to be fair, inclusive and quality for all children? Damn right I do, but this mess is going to take years to put right and my son has to start school in September. His education is important to us - people can think and say what they like about our decision, we are happy with it///

State schools have been underfunded since the 80's as a matter of policy.

But marytuda as I said, for me it's not about race in the slightest - in fact you don't even know if my son is white! I want him to mix with different races (because I want him to see that as normal and grow up non-racist) and he already does so at nursery which is great.

I just don't want him at a school that is full of kids who don't want to be there, who haven't been brought up to enjoy learning and who will be likely to bully him. I wish it wasn't that way but at some schools, it is. The school I am avoiding is pretty much all-white.

It's strange to see working class folk described as if they were some sort of tribe set apart from the rest of the population, their spending habits dissected as if they weren't prey to exactly the same marketing and advertising machinations as everyone else, and their response to market pressures and opportunities somehow different from everyone else's. Do middle class people not herd together, spend money on the same kind of merchandise (Boden, anyone?)

And why should the working class aspire to being middle class anyway? Upward social mobility is something many would not want if it was handed to them on a plate. Most people, no matter who they are and where they 'come from', just want a decent job and pay, decent holidays, and a pension when they retire, when it's all boiled down. Do most in the 'middle classes' have their sights set on 'upper class' life? The minor aristocracy?

Schools should forget about having any kind of social mission; their aim should be purely academic/ educational. Just do a good job of teaching a sound curriculum and let the chips fall where they may afterwards.

I think it's not right to assume that working class people are happy with their situation and will not want to be socially mobile. It's better to enable social mobility and offer a choice: no one has to take it.

Offering a sound education to all classes is a social mission, the finest mission. To each according to their need.

I know very intelligent children who have been sent off the rails at school by pure boredom through the national curriculum and targets. State schools (unless grammar or equivalently equiped) are just unable to provide for the children who are most able and therefore most likely to be upwardly mobile!

The only children that do well at state school are those who are able to motivate and apply themselves DESPITE the system. The most intelligent that need the most guidance are left to their own divices and end up wasting their time at school.

I saw a book of old O'level questions while out today. There were questions in there that would challenge most current degree students! And we wonder why so many teenagers disaffect? We need to start teaching these children & getting their buy-in long before they get so bored with the curriculum, but instead we teach to the lowest common standard!

Until then, I'll stick with indie schools thanks!

I knew they were dumbing down the currriculum even in 1985 when they removed calculus from the O-level syllabus. I had to explain it to my sister as she found it hard to cope with A level maths since she had'nt been taught it for O-levels.
I thank god I did O-levels at least everyone knew where they were with O-levels.

yes Marineiguana I'm not accusing you, how could I? You are right I know nothing about your situation or your child.
I'm thinking of people I do know. I'm in the unusual position of coming from an all-white, middle-class background, but now living in inner London with a mixed race child & black partner. If I hadn't met him, I'd probably be just as bad & thoughtlessly racist when it came to my kids as the people I AM accusing.
As it is, often in social settings with my old friends and family (and some new such as my rather posh antenatal group), my two are the only non-whites present (ever seen before, I sometimes feel!) despite the very mixed racial profile of where we live.
This is something, I have decided, which has to change for their sake. Starting with my son's nursery school.

No prob marytuda, apologies I thought you were replying specifically to my post.

Do you mean then that you want your mixed-race DC to be around at least some other children who are like them? because I think that's all I want too.

One big problem with the education system we have is that the "choice" that it allows makes it so divisive because people's choices end up pushing children into monocultural groups - not just in terms of race but class and also faith because of faith schools.

As has been said lots on this thread, "choice" actually means the chance for people with money, confidence, connections, ambition and/or knowledge of how to play the system, to get what they want, while others get left with the dregs. It's hardly surprising that the system tends to reinforce social inequality.