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.

"It should always be for an individual to determine their destiny."

YES!

yes but individuals are made by their surroundings. Choice isn't really choice. If you grow up on the council estate where no one works and hasn't for generations you're likely to think that is your choice. If you grow up in a family where 100% of people get professional jobs an earn over £100k you are likely to think that's your choice to follow that capitalist pursuit. If you grow up with a housewife mother at home, heaven forfend, then your daughtesr are likely to be good little subservient servants to their men even if they think they are making a "choice" to stay at home and make babies.

Xenia, your last post was a bit extreme, and would mean that no one would ever do anything other than what their parents did, which we know is not the case.

Xenia, whilst I sort of know where you are coming from, many women choose to SAH for their children as a way of offering support to them in their education, by being there for them, not as way of removing support or aspiration! You have been lucky enough to afford good quality childcare and education, which has enabled you to have 5 children without finding yourself in the work/childcare costs/stay at home dilemma. We have already acknowledged that not everyone is going to be Einstein or Superwoman, or the next Alan Sugar, so I think a slightly more reasonable look at how to inspire and encourage ordinary or below average people is required here! My mother was forced back to work when I was four because my father left her, aged 24, with two children and no financial support whatsoever. We were dumped on a hideous dangerous council estate when we lost our home because he stopped paying the mortgage. She went back to work to keep us off benefits, and to get us off the council estate and buy a little house in a better area. She achieved both those things, because she was determined and proud and hardworking, but it was by no means a perfect childhood as a result. We were left alone from a very young age in the school holidays because she couldn't afford childcare and still pay the mortgage, but she had tough choices to make about the quality of the social environment we grew up in. Whilst in theory she supported and encouraged us in our education, in reality she was so distracted by trying to make a living that we had very little real guidance or support compared to middle class children today, and I certainly under-achieved in education as a result. I always knew that when I had children I would do whatever I could to be at home for them for as long as I felt they needed me, for as long as I could possibly afford it. Seventeen years later I'm still here! I'm lucky, I don't have to work, and don't especially want to. I also had very strong views about when, and with who, I would eventually procreate, as I wasn't prepared to play russian roulette with my future children's family stability, or start them off with any kind of immediate disadvantage. I just was not prepared to do that under any circumstances. I had to be as sure as I could be (without the benefit of a crystal ball) that the future Mr Tiggy was a safe bet, and one or two fell by the wayside because I didn't trust them to go the whole distance. But had I not been so lucky in life and love (so far!) who knows what compromises I may have had to make. But I absolutely resent the assumption that I have let my children down and failed to set an example by staying at home for them!

I agree with Tiggy wrt SAHMs having the potential to have a very positive effect on a child's life. Many women and men have made the conscious choice to make this sort of investment of time and talent in their children's lives.

I think if you come from a disadvantaged area and your school choice is dictated by your address and not what you want or need, then your likelihood of ending up disadvantaged is quite high. Real choice among schools is not available for a lot of parents.

The proof of the pudding, at least in career terms, will be in the eating. Children tend to emulate their parents. There are plenty of families where the boy gets a good education paid for but the girl doesn't around where I live and not just those where the girl gets shipped back to Pakistan when she's 15 to marry. If chilren just see mothers clean the loo and wash the clothes homes and children of men and never go to work they are surely likely to think that's the normal backdrop to life so their sons are going to want a housewife and daughters not put much effort into work because they "know" women stop work to have babies and take 15 years out of it so there's not much point in working to become a surgeon or whatever

My mother hasn't ever worked but encouraged me to achieve my potential and have a career. I always thought that the 'normal backdrop' at home was deathly dull and it was a complete waste of time to spring clean the house every day to within an inch of its life. I see where you are coming from but it doesn't always follow that your mother's role is a blueprint for your own.

It's about what your mother/parent tells you, how positive they are and how much time they give you.

Cortina, in 17 years I have NEVER achieved spring cleaning the whole house to within an inch of its life on a daily basis, and even on a weekly basis it's a bit of a tough call! I'm really not sure whether to feel proud or embarrassed about that.

I think Xenia is sort of right though, in that, by and large you grow up with certain expectations depending on who you see around you. If your parents, grandparents, and aunts, uncles etc all tend to be graduates, and professionals you will sort of assume it's the least that's expected of you. And that's not always a good thing, any more than assuming that poor people are held back by their families lack of expectation.
There has been many a middle class person still being blamed for giving giving their father a heart attack and driving their
mother to the gin, simply because he dropped out of medical school to be a fire-eater!

Xenia, I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. Anyone who shows her children that she takes pride in her housework, who does it well, who teaches her children a good work-ethic, and insists they all contribute their help, gives them a great foundation of self-esteem and a sense of capability and responsibility.

I agree. My mother's personality and her family is to be effective, clever and work hard. My grandmother and great grandmothers worked and would have starved had they not. My mother worked for 13 years as a teacher and then did stop but she really really hated it. No one prevented her returning to work but she still whinged about it. We came home for lunch as did my father every day and she'd say I've done 5 loads of washing this morning in reply to my father talking about his interesting work. She was completely wasted at home and it wasn't a sexist home. My father did loads of housework and childcare and night fees and nappies. SO I agree that sometimes people rebel against what they saw at home or had a mother abandoned by a husband without any money so the child determines always to be able to support themselves .

B ut there are still plenty of different women around than this. My daughter has friends whose mothers married well and young who are looking for husbands for these early 20 somethings who have degrees and the girls want that and some of them don't want to work and they are 100% the daughters of mothers who have been housewives since 22. My daughter has completely different views from them perhaps because she's seen how much I get out of my work.

Careers are interesting too. I met someone yesterday in the educational sector. Their children are doing the same thing. My father and brother are psychiatrists. My daughters are doing what I did. It's very common that a child follows its parents into work. Just as Mr Baker the village baker in 1400 in the UK probably had children who became bakers and your average untouchable in India does whatever work their caste normally does.

As for housework - well we all do that to some extent even those of us with cleaners. You get very slovenly housewives and working parents and then very tidy good housewives and working parents too. I doubt the ability to keep a tidy house depends on the housewife skills. What you need most in a marriage is if both of you have similar standards which luckily I did. It's when the tidy person marries the sloven or vice versa sparks fly.

Xenia - I imagine it makes a huge difference if a parent has made an active choice to stay at home and enjoys being at home supporting their children than if they are forced to stay home because of income/expectations etc

That's exactly right anastaisia. Some women work because they have no choice other than a life on benefits, and other work because they love to. Some women would like to work, but the figures don't add up and it's more trouble than it's worth to pay for childcare and deal with all the logistical crap than to be at home yourself. Some women work because they are selfish and greedy and overly materialistic and have a slightly warped idea of what 'need' is. Some don't actually like to spend time with their children. Some make an informed choice to be at home because they believe it truly benefits their family, and others stay at home because they are lazy, and they'd probably be at home doing nothing even if they didn't have children. But if they can afford to, and no-one else is subsidising them, then that's their perogative.It's not as easy to generalise on this issue as it may seem.

Must clarify - When I say no-one else is subsidising them I meant the welfare state, not a partner. A SAH partner is entitled to 'be paid' or 'be kept' by a working partner if it a mutually accepted and mutually valued system that works for both parties (and the children) and they each respect the responsibilities/needs of the other - whether paid or unpaid, in or out of the home.

We are meandering again girlies....

No point in moving this to a who works thread particularyl but I don't agree it's a morally and politically neutral decision if women are paid to stay home, clean or give sex or whatever it might be housewives do for pay. It's a political decision which affects our daughters and other women and it's morally pernicious in my view.

But back on to social mobility most people agree that a country does better when those with natural talents (rather than thick idiots who are well connected whether that connection got them the jobs for the boys on the bins or in the City) have good chances to progress. They progress by pushing others back of course. If a board goes 50/50 female then a load of men are not getting board positions. We don't live in a society where everyone has all the prizes. If you go up others go down.

Xenia, my staying at home has been purely about the children. Please don't let my husband know that cleaning and giving sex are part of the job description otherwise he'll be asking for a refund of monies paid to my cleaners, or a backdated shag-fest.

They were talking about the lack of women in parliament on R4 this morning, Oonagh thingy (mixed race Lab MP, can't remember her full name, ooh, King, I think?) was saying that highly competant women were being 'held back' from government positions by a bunch of mediocre ineffective 'old men' (and she's on some government funded diversity think-tank or other - so nice to know she's not ageist then .) How exactly, are they being held back? If those mediocre old men have seats it's because people voted for them. They may well be mediocre but if no-one more inspiring, male or female is standing against them, what can be done? She says we should have positive discrimination where only female candidates can be put forward in some seats to get a more even balance of genders in government. I think that's a crap idea - all positive discrimination is a crap idea, and so patronising. Whether it be for colour, gender, age, or class background. The best person for the job should get the job. Women know they can run for parliament any time they want, and if they have fresh, relevant things to offer people will vote for them. If few women bother then perhaps it's because it's a just a job that relatively few women want. I can't abide all this constant meddling, social engineering and targets. It's a joke. Personally I think the government (and indeed the world) would be somewhat better run by women, but I don't want to see it achieved by forcibly removing the rights of men to compete! Where would be the intellectual and moral victory in that? What tosh!

It's meddling, social engineering and targets, and the constant chopping and changing thereof, that have scuppered a lot of schools and taken down the unfortunate children forced to go to them. Most of it comes from (always misguided) patronising ideologues.

Agreed, math. What I suppose in the end, is the only thing to do, is to stop measuring performance of these schools against other 'better' (ie. socially mixed, or largely middle class, less challenging)ones and start measuring them only against themselves, and other similar schools. I don't think teachers ought to be paid on exam performance (one silly idea mooted by some) as it's clearly not a level playing field for them - that assumes that the only factor is their ability to teach well. But equally, why would good, experienced teachers who can take their pick of jobs, go somewhere where their abilities will be questioned when they fail to create a silk purse from a sow's ear, and where their enthusiasm and passion will be greeted with indifference and disdain on a daily basis? Who (other than a martyr) needs the hassle?

Perhaps schools ought to be graded on a pay scale according to how challenging they are. (Maybe they are already? - I don't know!) That way, good, resourceful, experienced teachers who have a proven ability to inspire may be more inclined to take the leap out of their comfort zone. But only if we stop publicly flogging them when they fail, in spite of everything, to make a dramatic difference. After all, only the parents can really so that.

I'd just like to point out that I used gender neutral descriptions of 'a parent' choosing to stay home - because I agree that it IS a political issue that it is nearly always women who stay home.

However I don't think that makes it a bad thing for a PARENT to choose to stay home.

I think they are two different issues entirely.

Tiggy - Political parties give safe seats to people they want to get elected. I'd hazard a guess that the woman was probably talking about something along those lines. I think we should overhaul the voting system completely, never mind positive discrimination.

I didn't know that ana. How do you mean 'give'? Can't anyone stand if the put up the deposit?

Heads who take on very bad schools get bigger pay packets. It's one of the excesses of this Government which will have to be held back now we are virtually banktrupt as a nation. Excessive public sector pay.

I'm all for more fathers staying ath ome until we get their numbers up to the number of women at home and then we might start to get partners at Enst & YOung 90% female or it as likely the board of M&S is 80% female as male. Huge long way to go yet and every woman who stays home to childcare reduces the chance.

Anyone can stand for election, but you might have a seat that has been Labour for the past 75 years, and the polls suggest it will be labour again, and you're a higher up in the Labour Party; you can pick a candidate you really want to be voted in to stand for that seat rather than another one where they may or may not be voted in.

actually not anyone can stand, but most can:
How to become an MP