Government's new plan on Grammar Schools

[LondonMix]

I read this article in the FT recently by Jana and its literally one of the most insightful things I've read about social mobility in a long time. I'm just curious what the collective wisdom of the forum thinks.

"...The trouble with this debate is not just the hysteria. It may also not matter very much who is right. Mrs May can improve schools a bit, through whatever means, and leave only a scratch on entrenched privilege.

Unless the total stock of prestigious and well-paid jobs grows as it did in the postwar decades, which seems fanciful, talented poor children will struggle to rise unless mediocre rich children fall. There must be, to name the best film on class from the era, room at the top.

That room rarely opens up because those mediocrities are too well-screened by parents who hire private tutors, buy cultural enrichment, teach etiquette, set expectations, stand as personal examples of success, coach interview technique, navigate any bureaucratic maze put before them, set up home in nice areas, arrange internships via friends and, just to rub in their supremacy, make direct gifts of cash and assets. To fail under these conditions is a kind of achievement in itself.

No chess grand?master can out-think an upper-middle-class couple trying to rig life for its spawn. This awesome ingenuity is what you are up against, Prime Minister. If you want a ?truly meritocratic Britain?, not just a slightly more meritocratic one, you must bring something mightier to the cause than a tweak to school admissions criteria. The policy is not too controversial, it is not controversial enough.

The state would have to curb personal freedom, even human nature, to make downward mobility a serious risk for people born to rich parents. Would voters support confiscatory taxes on inheritance and lifetime gifts, the criminalisation of nepotism, the regulation of work experience, tutors and other kinds of ?soft? cheating? Would the well-off pay taxes for universal public services if schools in poor districts had much smaller class sizes than those in their own coveted catchment areas? The rich compound their privileges by marrying each other: what chance government diktat in matters of the heart?

To spell out the reforms is to see their political unthinkability. Almost everybody talks a good game about social mobility and almost nobody means it. They want a world in which their kin cannot move down, or even feel the shiver of insecurity at the prospect. This impulse is entirely natural but it should not be cloaked in a pretence of concern for fairness and merit. After all, no one who dislikes brute notions of victory and defeat feigns enthusiasm for professional sport. Egalitarians do not flatter free-market ideology. But people who insulate their offspring from competition make a show of wishing poor young aspirants the very best.

Anyone who has risen to an elevated line of work that was not their own from birth ? Justine Greening, the education secretary, for example ? knows the two faces of luck. In every classroom, there are children who could aspire to her job (or mine, or yours) but will never know it. In every grand office, there are people who got there through the expensive cultivation of unremarkable talent. They do not know it either. Until the second injustice upsets us as much as the first, we do not really care about the first.

Mrs May wants a society where individual potential, performance and reward are aligned. Barring a sudden and historic proliferation of attractive jobs such as nobody sees coming, she must therefore want more people of her class to take a tumble in life, and to will the means via government policy. She does not, and neither do many people. Maybe we go to war over marginal differences in school structure because other kinds of advantage are too awkward to confront."

[????]

There's a fair bit of this on the "buying gold" thread LM

If I was to vastly oversimplify and summarise that thread with a class dimension (anecdotally)- the more middleclass you are the more you oppose this; the more working class the more you support it.....which is interesting itself

[LondonMix]

Hmm, that interesting. So working class posters support Grammar schools while middle class posters don't on that thread.

The author of the article above doesn't particularly weigh in on grammars as much as highlights what little difference its likely to make one way or another.

I might check out that thread to hear the pro and con arguments people are making either way but the whole room at the top issue is the biggest barrier. I personally know the 'two faces of luck' and couldn't agree more with the conclusions the author reaches.

[DaveR]

This is the key sentence:

"That room rarely opens up because those mediocrities are too well-screened by parents who hire private tutors, buy cultural enrichment, teach etiquette, set expectations, stand as personal examples of success, coach interview technique, navigate any bureaucratic maze put before them, set up home in nice areas, arrange internships via friends and, just to rub in their supremacy, make direct gifts of cash and assets..."

Making direct gifts of cash and assets is kind of irrelevant - that's not a zero sum game of the type that he is writing about. The question then is, how can you prevent the other things quoted from tipping the balance terminally in favour of the privileged? It should be recognised that things have already changed a lot. Anybody who thinks a dim but connected rich kid can waltz into Oxbridge, is deluded - everybody they take is seriously smart - and the same can be said of large areas of business and the professions, where hiring mediocre people will just hurt the bottom line. There have also been a lot of developments recently about 'blind hiring', where at least the first stage in the recruitment process eliminates any 'social' inputs e.g. what school the candidate went to. See also a move away from blanket graduate recruitment, to more bespoke training, apprenticeships etc., with a focus on trying to widen the recruitment pool at 18, and also increasingly structured and transparent intern programs. Nepotism is getting harder and harder to push through. The 'two faces of luck' are far less widespread than they ever were, and the direction of travel is pretty much all one way. And so it should continue.

The subject that nobody ever talks about in social mobility conversations is not inherited wealth, but inherited 'talent', in the broadest sense of the word. When the child of a famous sports star makes it as a pro themselves, most people don't shout about nepotism, because success and failure in sport is brutal and transparent - if you're not good enough, everyone can see it. In a genuine, no holds barred meritocracy, the same applies - and we might not like the results. The guy who coined the word 'meritocracy' understood that perfectly well.

[LondonMix]

I think the two faces of luck are much more present than your post suggests DaveR (at least in my experience).

I agree that dim or lazy rich kids don't do well in the MOST demanding professions anymore. However, basically average rich kids with excellent training go pretty far if they also have a strong work ethic and decent social skills. The training makes them seem better than average and the training gives them valuable skills but the raw material that's there is often pretty mediocre. This has been my repeated experience working in London.

I went to a highly selective secondary school in the US that was also free (top 1%). However, unlike UK grammars mine was very socially mixed with the majority of pupils being working / lower middle class. After I graduated I went to Columbia University and then Oxford for my masters. The smartest group of people I've ever been around still are my high school class mates, the majority of whom predominantly work in fine but not spectacular professional fields compared to my university classmates.

Banning unpaid internships for one would be a start at tackling some of the softer issues highlighted above. Making cultural enrichment accessible to all pupils and have it organised through school so parental initiative isn't the determining factor would be another measure.

[DaveR]

I don't think we really disagree; however, it is worth recognising that many 'top jobs' are in fields where proper open competition is the norm, and has been for years, which runs contrary to popular perception. I don't think it's a coincidence (in light of the article cited) that journalism is not one of those fields.

[jaywalker]

One of the weaknesses of the article in the first post is that it sees middle class behaviour as the outcome of intentional strategy (which is why middle class people tend to get very irate when you criticise the education system).

A good example was the recent report that you should not wear brown shoes with a dark suit if you want a job in the city. How does one learn this cultural arbitrary (one which I routinely violate having retired)? Not at all through explicit instruction: it is a matter of disposition, learned tacitly, through unspoken exemplar. This is a synecdoche of the process - just multiply it up across all aspects of recognition (in the sense of 'are they one of us?').

May is a child of her time. She recognises populism for what it is and will pander to it through the bad faith that grammar schools increase social mobility (as in the 'why I am buying gold thread' in this section of the forum). As these unspeakable policies unfold I am increasingly thinking of leaving the country.

[LondonMix]

That's fair

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think we really disagree; however, it is

> worth recognising that many 'top jobs' are in

> fields where proper open competition is the norm,

> and has been for years, which runs contrary to

> popular perception. I don't think it's a

> coincidence (in light of the article cited) that

> journalism is not one of those fields.

[Aristide]

I'm not sure that the social mobility of the 50's was purely down to there being 'room at the top'

The war and war effort brought people together more than any time before or since. Classes working together for a common cause, I think Thatcher may have just been a symptom of the reaction against this, but the me and mine first culture that came out of her premiership is exactly the thing that is preventing voters from supporting

'confiscatory taxes on inheritance and lifetime gifts,'

Whilst I dont think Corbyn has the qualities to win an election, I do believe the movement that seems to be sprouting around him and people like Bernie Sanders are at least engaging in this level of debate.

The best thing that has happened to social mobility in London is a properly funded education system- forget the Academy fig leaf, schools in London get far more money than those in the rest of the country and it shows.

Gotta pay for it somehow!

[LondonMix]

Aristide, but without room at the top, its impossible to have social mobility unless some of those at the top fall down a level socially, which I'm not sure happened even in the 50s.

[JohnL]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Aristide, but without room at the top, its

> impossible to have social mobility unless some of

> those at the top fall down a level socially, which

> I'm not sure happened even in the 50s.

Could new areas emerge - allowing more room at the top ?

[TheCat]

"That room rarely opens up because those mediocrities are too well-screened by parents who hire private tutors, buy cultural enrichment, teach etiquette, set expectations, stand as personal examples of success, coach interview technique, navigate any bureaucratic maze put before them, set up home in nice areas, arrange internships via friends and, just to rub in their supremacy, make direct gifts of cash and assets. To fail under these conditions is a kind of achievement in itself"

I do understand the point this paragraph is trying to make, but I think sometimes 'middle-class parents' are demonised a little harshly. With the exception of a few things in the list above (e.g. private tutors, arranged internships, direct gifts etc..and in the case of the latter two I think are rarer than one might think), many of these things I would say are just 'good parenting' that is in no way reflective of wealth or class. "teach etiquette"? "set expectations"? "setting an example"?....those evil middle class parents, how dare they teach manners, set boundaries and rules, and encourage their children to succeed......

[Aristide]

There's middle class and middle class. Charter School parents are predominantly seen as middle class but not many of them find themselves hoovering up a large proportion of top acting jobs or cabinet posts, the middle class of another esteemed school on the other hand....

However thanks to good management and more importantly high levels of investment schools like the charter are sending more and more kids to top universities, the grammar schools debate is a distraction from the poor levels of funding that the schools in the rest of the country are getting, much like the 7 day a week care debate is for NHS funding.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is 70 years of good evidence on the grammar system and it nearly all shows that privveledgr and inequality are entrenched by it. The debate really should be over. Setting kids for different subjects within the same school and relentlessly targeting and raising the standards of underperforming schools, rather than segregating kids based on an exam which can be gamed at age 11 is the way to go. London schools have been tirnwd around through concerted efforts over many years. We know what works.

[aplogies for typos, on my phone]

[Earl Aelfheah]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In every classroom,

> there are children who could aspire to her job (or

> mine, or yours) but will never know it. In every

> grand office, there are people who got there

> through the expensive cultivation of unremarkable

> talent. They do not know it either."

This is so, so true. Could even be applied to Cameron.

[BrandNewGuy]

Aristide Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure that the social mobility of the 50's

> was purely down to there being 'room at the top'

>

> The war and war effort brought people together

> more than any time before or since. Classes

> working together for a common cause, I think

> Thatcher may have just been a symptom of the

> reaction against this...

But did that really carry over much postwar? I'm not old enough to remember, but lots of people of my parents' generation regarded much of the 50s and 60s as "I'm All Right Jack" when it came to poor management, intransigent unions and woeful productivity ? very far from having common cause. It's a shame Thatcher didn't address the "poor management" question as much as she did the union issue.

[miga]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Making cultural enrichment

> accessible to all pupils and have it organised

> through school so parental initiative isn't the

> determining factor would be another measure.

What do you mean by "cultural enrichment"? We live in London - there is an incredible array of completely free and world class cultural experiences available to kids.

On the wider subject of grammar schools - if they became the norm again, thus increasing the number of selective places in total, surely the expensive "gaming" would become less of a factor. I think these are a great idea (but I would, being a third generation selective everything hoop-jumper) - and yes, they do wonders for social mobility.

Finally - on getting a "top job". I have the wrong name, the wrong accent and I have never worn a pair of cufflinks. It hasn't stopped me working in the City most of my career (OK - maybe not in a "top job" - I'm not and MD....yet). The trick is to choose a profession that requires technical ability and brains, and to work hard. If you choose a nebulous field like advertising or media (whatever that is) - you'll be judged by nebulous criteria, like what school you went to or where you "summer". Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

It's only a game if you choose to play it.

[TheCat]

Aristide Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "There's middle class and middle class"

I'm from Australia, where there really isnt such an identifiable class system to speak of. Sure there's rich and poor, but its not so ingrained 'where you come from', unless you're talking about geography.

I've been here over 10 years, but I'm always amazed at how much discussion the 'class system' can generate. So apologies if I didnt know which type of middle class is the right type of middle class....:)

[TheCat]

Genuine Question.....

While there the debate about 'segregation', there appears to be a similar amount of angst about the 11+ as the tool of that segregation. So my question is, would it be more palatable for some if the entrance criteria were changed?, so say, coursework over 2 years (not just one exam), which I believe is how its often done in germany

[Otta]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Aristide Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "There's middle class and middle class"

>

> I'm from Australia, where there really isnt such

> an identifiable class system to speak of. Sure

> there's rich and poor, but its not so ingrained

> 'where you come from', unless you're talking about

> geography.

>

> I've been here over 10 years, but I'm always

> amazed at how much discussion the 'class system'

> can generate. So apologies if I didnt know which

> type of middle class is the right type of middle

> class....:)

I dunno, my Aussie mates are always talking about boguns living up in the hills (suburbs). I reckon there is a fair bit of class snobbery going on there.

[Aristide]

seeing as only 25% of kids get 'selected' can we not call Grammar as an exclusive system for the 75% that get excluded.

[LondonMix]

I don't think he was trying to demonize middle class parents at all. He very clearly says all of it is basic human nature and I agree. That's why some of the issues are intractable which is the real point he's making.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "That room rarely opens up because those

> mediocrities are too well-screened by parents who

> hire private tutors, buy cultural enrichment,

> teach etiquette, set expectations, stand as

> personal examples of success, coach interview

> technique, navigate any bureaucratic maze put

> before them, set up home in nice areas, arrange

> internships via friends and, just to rub in their

> supremacy, make direct gifts of cash and assets.

> To fail under these conditions is a kind of

> achievement in itself"

>

> I do understand the point this paragraph is trying

> to make, but I think sometimes 'middle-class

> parents' are demonised a little harshly. With the

> exception of a few things in the list above (e.g.

> private tutors, arranged internships, direct gifts

> etc..and in the case of the latter two I think are

> rarer than one might think), many of these things

> I would say are just 'good parenting' that is in

> no way reflective of wealth or class. "teach

> etiquette"? "set expectations"? "setting an

> example"?....those evil middle class parents, how

> dare they teach manners, set boundaries and rules,

> and encourage their children to succeed......

[TheCat]

boguns are like chavs. Is 'chav' a class too?

and im not saying there's no class snobbery at all. But its not even a patch on how people think about it here.....

[TheCat]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think he was trying to demonize middle

> class parents at all. He very clearly says all of

> it is basic human nature and I agree. That's why

> some of the issues are intractable which is the

> real point he's making.

>

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "That room rarely opens up because those

> > mediocrities are too well-screened by parents

> who

> > hire private tutors, buy cultural enrichment,

> > teach etiquette, set expectations, stand as

> > personal examples of success, coach interview

> > technique, navigate any bureaucratic maze put

> > before them, set up home in nice areas, arrange

> > internships via friends and, just to rub in

> their

> > supremacy, make direct gifts of cash and

> assets.

> > To fail under these conditions is a kind of

> > achievement in itself"

> >

> > I do understand the point this paragraph is

> trying

> > to make, but I think sometimes 'middle-class

> > parents' are demonised a little harshly. With

> the

> > exception of a few things in the list above

> (e.g.

> > private tutors, arranged internships, direct

> gifts

> > etc..and in the case of the latter two I think

> are

> > rarer than one might think), many of these

> things

> > I would say are just 'good parenting' that is

> in

> > no way reflective of wealth or class. "teach

> > etiquette"? "set expectations"? "setting an

> > example"?....those evil middle class parents,

> how

> > dare they teach manners, set boundaries and

> rules,

> > and encourage their children to succeed......

Hence why I said 'I understand his point', and made a different point

[LondonMix]

Some forms of cultural enrichment in London may be technically accessible but the point is to ensure that all children (regardless of the quality of their parents) get to actually have these experiences. I actually think London schools are good at this already which is one of the many reasons London state pupils outperform the rest of the country despite having a large concentration of poorer students and students with English as a second language. With the right approach and funding, it clear than none of these issues have to be a barrier to academic success.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Aristide Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "There's middle class and middle class"

>

> I'm from Australia, where there really isnt such

> an identifiable class system to speak of. Sure

> there's rich and poor, but its not so ingrained

> 'where you come from', unless you're talking about

> geography.

>

> I've been here over 10 years, but I'm always

> amazed at how much discussion the 'class system'

> can generate. So apologies if I didnt know which

> type of middle class is the right type of middle

> class....:)