In perhaps the least surprising news story since it was revealed that our royal 'betters' were (and probably still are) racist, Nazi loving scumbags in the 1930's. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission found that the majority of people who enter into higher paying careers are, rather unsurprisingly, from privileged backgrounds. In fact those from professional backgrounds, with doctors or lawyers as parents, are significantly more likely to enter into professional employment than those from unskilled backgrounds, meaning parents working as labourers or shop-workers.
The report found that, whilst ability played a significant role in shaping people's post-educational opportunities, it was far from a level playing field. When rehashing old, well trodden ground, they acknowledged the "ways and unmeritocratic private school wage premium could come about; for example, if recruitment in to high earning occupations is biased towards people educated in private schools" (page 41). That is a direct quotation from the paper and has been left as it is written, but if you were to replace the word IF with WHEN then you'll find yourself staring at a Britain we recognise from the stories of the bad (good depending on your class) old days when social mobility for the working class was a pipe dream. Not at all similar to today, where it just heavily increases your chances to the point where you're almost guaranteed success if you're a toff, and gives you more obstacles to overcome than a run through the 'tough mudder' course if you're not.
They went on to explain how the system continues to keep the classes in their places, "as a result of shared interests, hobbies, accent, cultural norms, through networks, social circles, and personal networks, to name but a few." What a 'few' they are! It immediately brings to mind a small line written about the growing income inequality in America by Bob Herbert, "it's like chasing a speedboat with a rowboat", which I believe works just as well in this context. In theory you give everyone an equal opportunity to make it, but then you allow one group to continue a practice that equips every advantage to their kind, to the extent that they can exert comparatively little effort compared to the competition and win, and then once all the advantages are in places, you pull the trigger on the start gun and expect some degree of fairness. The commissions paper even goes as far as to point out that what economists call "signalling", the identification of another as belonging to their social class, is beneficial to obtaining a higher paid job (summary page iv) . Do the commission offer up any real solutions to these issues? Yes and no.
Firstly, they suggest fighting too much inequality between private schooling and state schooling by, and this truly is a cracker even for economists pretending to understand social issues, cutting the choice available to parents about which state schools to send their children to. That's not where the problems are at because they'll just move, more on that in the second paragraph, or send them to private schools. In fairness, they do acknowledge that this would have the knock on effect of simply sending more well off brats to private schools and creating even more privately educated toffs. You can hear the collective cries of middle England "oh no we cannot have poor Beatrice and Montague mixing with those oiks named Dillon or Chantelle". However, by stating that this is a risk of limiting the options, then why not offer up any other solutions? What I'd suggest would be an outright ban on private schooling. Do that and watch the quality of state education rapidly rise, I can guarantee it. If the Bourgeois gits decided to object, well, fuck them, there's more of us.
They follow this by mentioning the Grammar school system, which I am more familiar with than private schools, as I was born and raised in one of the last few bastions for this form of inequality in the UK. The report states that "low attaining children from better-off families were more likely to attend a Grammar school" (page 41), something I've witnessed first hand. Of all of the people I knew growing up one kid, ONE among many, many kids, attended a Grammar school. They were out of the way, not local enough, in the posher areas of the town. Yes, you could pass your 11+, but then if it was over-subscribed it would go to admissions criteria which included; children with family members currently there and distance from the school considered to be within the 'safe walking distance'. It is well known that areas with good schools are gentrified rapidly, so in effect, they simply become a state funded method for perpetuating inequality. The economists behind the paper even highlight the likelihood of poorer children attending poorer schools, but as is befitting their lack of understanding of the social causes of inequality, it fails to see the reason for this.
The report then turns it attention to the post-education barriers, such as unpaid internships, which unfairly exclude those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or more precisely non-advantaged backgrounds (because realistically only those on a very good wage could support an internship for however long it lasts in somewhere like London). Suggesting radical ideas such as, stopping unpaid internships and that existing legislation to prevent discrimination actually be enforced. Again, not quite far enough but at least it has fully identified a couple of the problems.
Finally, the report concludes with a challenge to the government in that "if politicians are serious about their expressed desire to increase social mobility in the UK they will need to address barriers that are preventing less advantaged children from reaching their full potential and remove barriers that block downward mobility". Judging by the governments list of educational reform policies, damaging the chances of the working class at all levels of education in this country, I'm going to guess that is not going to be happening. Just have a look at this article about how "some academy sponsors are 'harming' prospects of deprived pupils" or this article showing how much more poorer graduates will owe upon completion of their course than their rich classmates.
Clearly then, this inequality in education and beyond is what it has always been, deliberate and ideologically driven. Expecting this or any other mainstream government to do anything about it is pointless. They like the inequality. Capitalism requires it. It requires the scapegoats it provides. The best way to do this is by leaving the working class as poorly educated as possible. By asking economists of all people to look into the subtleties that lay behind the causes of inequality, rather than those more equipped with the knowledge to offer real solutions, proves what this report is... Governmental lip service to those demanding that they at least be seen to try to bridge the gap between the rich and poor. A gap they are delighting in actively widening. It's a non-story and fog to hide all that inactivity.
