Social Mobility is a frequent discussion in England. The Left, particularly, laments that England is still a country riven by class division and tradition. Indeed, as someone who has mingled in officer circles as a child due to a father in the airforce, I have subsequently experienced the flip coin of reverse snobbery ; being told "ere, you sound posh, where are you from then?" Every Brit has experienced discrimination or suspicion in their own country because of their accent, and knows how being from 30 minutes away can lead to problems with locals in the neighbouring city. Accents and social mobility in England have a lot to do with schooling. There is a strange obsession, from Conservatives at least, with the apparent success of schools like Eton over state schools. Why strange?
If you took all the students from Eton, and replaced them with state school pupils, but kept the facilities and the staff, would those staff be able to get similar results given some time? The answer is a resounding no, and everybody knows it. The results at Eton are the result of academic selection and coming from a wealthy background. Average state schools cannot by definition emulate this, so why does the Conservative government of England try to? The short answer of course is, they are idiots. Their policies, like most Conservatives around the world, are based on ideology and prejudice with little real analysis or thought, or recourse to evidence. Actual evidence shows the real reasons behind the success of wealthy private school students, ( it's the wealth and exclusion of undesirable students, not the private 'methods' that makes the difference) but the elites of England, and many of the middle class, remain infatuated with the old trappings of power. Hence this governments attempt to privatise British schools with the academy program. Or the farcical relaunching of academies in the state sector, where new super-heads were allowed to expel a hundred trouble makers, and then people wondered why the relaunched school did better. It was pitiful to see schools being renamed, as though rebranding could fix the social, economic and cultural problems that had caused the issues in the first place. Most people are familiar with the idea of students losing learning over the summer vacation, but do they know this generally happens in poor families but not wealthy families? The reasons appears to be access to resources ( which enable activities that aid learning and development ) and cultural, (e.g wealthy families are more likely to have books around and value learning). Wealthy children generally return to school in September having read a few books and likely having had a few lessons from a private tutor to keep up, whilst students from more average families have a tougher time adjusting for the first couple of months back. What happens in the summer months is a far greater indicator of why private school students tend to do better than state school students. Hard evidence proves it.
http://www.onlinecollege.org/2012/05/15/15-critical-facts-everyone-should-know-about-summer-learning-loss/
Furthermore, does anyone imagine Eton graduates really are that much better than an average state school student? The answer is, on average, yes, actually they are, but the real question is, why, and what does 'better' mean? Do Eton teachers and facilities really lead to the greater success of these students at university and in their later careers? Or do students from schools like Eton have a clearer idea of where they are going, and the knowledge and connections that will help them get there? Boris Johnson, case in point. The rise of this buffoon to Mayor of London and Foreign Secretary of the UK is astonishing to foreigners, and a damning inditement of our country's infatuation with elitism. Does anyone who takes a hard look at Boris Johnson really think Eton and Oxford are superior wonder schools?
This leads to the question; how much of the initial progress of Eton graduates in postgraduate studies and careers is due to having Eton and Oxford on a resume? And again the question arises, how much better is a university like Oxford compared to others, and why are we so obsessed with rankings? At the postgraduate level, where students work closely with professors and research matters more, I have no doubt Oxford has an edge, but what real difference does it make to the vast majority of undergraduates? Smaller class sizes and seminars probably make the most difference. Why do the middle and upper classes swoon for Oxbridge still, and why do so many working class families not value education in the same way? These are the questions that need answering with respect to education and social mobility, not some naive pursuit of 'private is better'.
Instead of focusing on choice and the methods of the private sector, government should focus on the cultural reasons why more average families do not seem to value education as much, and for cost effective methods to enhance access to educational materials. The Internet is already a great leveller in this respect. Let us look to reduce inequality, both culturally and in resources. A great start would be to simply focus on literacy and elementary schools more. Every state high school teacher knows most behaviour and academic problems have a lot to do with simple literacy issues. Smaller class sizes at the elementary level would be one of the greatest investments the British government could make. In the meantime, I suspect we will continue to see an illogical infatuation with schools like Eton for no real reason at all.
Further reading here :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10689547/Exaggerated-value-of-private-education.html
I finally got back to your blogs. It is interesting that your focus is the question of the quality of speech as indicator of class. In every day life, i found that poorly educated people are unable to express their ideas in a way that they get the respect of their betters. There choice of words and gestures sometimes make them boisterous in emergencies, where i have functioned for a long time. They are not conscious of the quality of their speech, but they are emphatic and do not hesitate to question what services are offered [in a public hospital] and spice them with expletives as they see fit. Of course, being in social services,we seldom retort in kind.It was a good preparation for going abroad when one has to function well in a second language, so far away from the native tongue. Over the years, i was able to bridge that gap, having left home when i was 24 and had to function right after arrival in Texas. my training stood me in good stead, but i had to learn that English is spoken and written in so many different ways. I also dawned on me that one's speech and written word indicate one's education and class. This consciousness meant i had to be selective with whom I associate and what books and materials to read. Adjustment was not so difficult and my marriage was helpful to the extent that we did not resort to our different native tongues to communicate. We both agreed that the kids will speak the Canadian official languages, and the avenue for learning German was there as well. we felt that strength in languages will allow them to navigate the system far easier and their livelihood are ascertained. It was important for us that they can stand in their own two feet, hold their own in a Caucasian world dominated by the male gender. It has improved very much over the years and I do not feel any difference for them anymore. In a way, we are fortunate in Canada, because class differences don't much matter,except among the very rich, like Mount Royal habitues. The very rich get their children educated in the high class US schools [Yale, Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford]like Trudeau Sr. I think the girls are democratic enough not to make much of class distinctions. They have a way of doing things that conform with their friends, but I admit they have not really dealt with class differences that make downtown east side so different from the west side. I guess, British society [European Empires] had a very long history of class distinction as most of the novels of the 19th century indicate, But it is sad fact, that the rich are so different from us, even today, not only in material wealth, but more importantly in their outlook of superiority. The noveaux riche are just as bad, e.g. Trump. In essence, its not only their cultural and material superiority, but also their political well to bend us to their will.They use their superior education to trip us and rob us blind. Perhaps, our class is not as bad off as the Indigenous population,but I think they are picking up and will be better off in a generation or two. I hope that the Liberal government will help them lift themselves out of their share of misery.I had very little exposure with the First Nations and it was mostly drug related maladies. Downtown Eastside here is still a miserable place and not the place to be at night. I worked there and mercifully it was uneventful. By then, the girls were self sustaining. My views are very much colored by my experience.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. Apologies for the late reply, I did not receive a notification. I think you are right language is a key way in which the rich and powerful connect and support each other, and this is true of all social groups. North America is certainly better than the Uk in this respect.
ReplyDelete