don't mention redistribution...

John Humphrys has just made a programme, 'Unequal advantage', on social mobility and education - or so he thinks.

In his words: 'I've been making it for the best part of a year and the question it looks at is why is the social gap not narrowing.'

But the whole programme is built on the assumption that education is the key - and the only means - to narrowing that gap. No other possibilities entertained.

There's also an interview with Humphrys here. A couple of interesting quotes:

Interviewer: Is the problem just within education?

JH: No it isn't. The fact that we now have so many single-parent families, that's a predictor of social mobility. But the biggest predictor is income. If you have a low income you are less likely to get out of your social class; it's poverty of ambition and all kinds of things. Why should that be the case? I suppose it's because the social mores have broken down... if you move away from what we had after the war – a small 'c' conservative society – the consequence is that you are much less likely to have two-parent families.

Interviewer: What is the significance of fewer two-parent families?

JH: According to some estimates, 40% of children now are born out of wedlock, which is a staggering figure. And the chances are that if a child is born out of wedlock there will be less money in a household. The rest follows from that....'

Ah right. Everything follows from the social mores breaking down. Or is it that it follows from too many single parents.

I don't follow. But in any case, and despite the fact that the 'biggest predictor' of social mobility is income, the idea of acting on income inequality directly doesn't deserve a mention in the hour long programme.

Then there's this quote:

'It's all down to the head. They've got to have a lot of charisma and be able to terrify and enthuse the kids.'

We want to build an education system based on terrifying children!!?

==================================

My letter to Humphrys:

Dear John Humphrys

I found your programme on education interesting, but I was surprised that you made no mention of perhaps the most obvious solution to the problem of low social mobility and unequal opportunity. You put the question several times: ‘what can be done?’, but then only considered education’s role – as if education needed to be the sole mechanism, or indeed – that it could possibly be the sole mechanism.

Why did you not look at the idea that the causality might go the other way: that (financial) inequality within society is at the root of the problem, and that reducing it by other means might provide an answer not only to improving social mobility directly, but also to equalising the possibilities for parents to buy their children advantage. Education may play its own role – and an important one – but as you pointed out, the ‘middle classes’ will always find ways of buying the best for their children, so however excellent we make our huge academies or comprensives, the gap is almost certain to remain. Expecting teachers and headteachers to take on the burden of reducing that gap, while the world around is acting to increase it, is surely wishful thinking – as well as laying a huge responsibility on on them.

The UK is one of the worst among the rich countries for both inequality and social mobility, and there have been numerous studies to show that the two are closely connected. I’m sure you’re aware of the work of the Equality Trust which suggests that educational results also depend on the degree of inequality (the more equal the society, the better the results).

Was it not at least worth discussing the option of reducing inequality directly, as a means to improve both education and social mobility – or is that taboo as a point of discussion in this country?

With thanks

EK

His response:

Yes, it's obviously worth talking about reducing inequality, but that's not what the programme set out to do. That's a different programme. What I want4d to explore is why education is not helping to narrow the attainment gap between those who have and those who have not. You'\re right: if there were no inequalities there would be no gap. But there are and good schools should make a difference.

Best wishes.

John Humphrys

My response:

Many thanks for responding. In your Guardian interview you say 'the question [the programme] looks at is why is the social gap not narrowing' - which is slightly different from why education is not helping to narrow it. Even if it's the second of these, my point is partly that you don't narrow a gap by only acting on one edge, unless you can be sure that the other edge won't move away as you do so. With education, for the reasons I set out before, you can be almost certain that however much you raise standards of education for those at the 'bottom', those with more income will continue to find ways to retain their relative advantage.

A discussion about why education is not helping to narrow the gap surely has to involve at least a mention of the forces external to education which are helping to drive that gap; and a hunt for solutions surely has to involve recognition that the forces themselves need to be addressed.

It seems to me that your programme was really about how inner city schools can be improved, given that we cannot act on income inequality. Unless one accepts that assumption, that question is more of educational than social relevance.

yours
EK