Elephant in the [Class] Room

Daniel Hoffman-Gill offers an interesting opinion on the alienation of the white working classes in the UK. Essentially, he does not want to see this group left behind and the comments that follow his blog posting highlight the differing (read 'divisive') points of view on the issue. Whatever we think however, it remains true, that white working class children have the lowest levels of academic achievement in schools and remain the most socially immobile of all the demographic groups within the UK (see the Joseph Rowntree Report). Invariably, schools that take these children in will have a bigger cultural issue to tackle in their communities that they serve and are challenged with breaking a culture of low aspiration at the individual, parental and societal level. It's a tall order.  

Sir Robin Bosher of the Harris Federation of Academies, describes his findings: "I see about 10 per cent in each class who are so unsociable that they hurt others, adults and other young children. But they’re unsociable because they’ve no practice at being sociable." Compare that to other 'poor' groups - European Muslim migrants, people learning in a non-native language and so on. Think also of people in the developing world who live a hand-to-mouth existence who also start off with disadvantage. The difference is, in general, these groups tend to value education and see it as a key to social mobility. 

As an educator, with a body of experience in several countries, it goes without saying that I believe that education is an important means to meet the needs of the wider social good. I cannot ignore, however, that in England education is way too (negatively) politicised and this makes education as a public service vulnerable to constant government manipulation. The challenges, however, of being at the chalk-face on a daily basis means that educators have a different perspective on the social matters that children bring into school and meeting the needs of the white working class is not as simple as another set of reforms. 

It would be fair to conclude that essentially 65 years of exhaustive educational reform in the UK has not delivered on closing the educational achievement gaps for white working class children or driving up their aspirations. The occasional examples that highlight traditionally working class people being the first in their families to access higher education are something of an illusory distraction. Progress to university remains a mainly upwardly mobile, middle-class aspiration. 

The social mobility arguments remain at the cornerstone of the 'moral purpose' behind education and there is some expectation that schools pick up the task of changing social and behavioural cultures. Scaled up on a nationwide level, is this possible or appropriate? I would understand if people thought that education plays a part in social reform, but in all honestly, despite the many dedicated professional educators who reach out to vulnerable communities, nearly 70 years after the post war education reforms began, who is actually responsible for breaking the culture of non-aspiration? Do we continue to respond to white working class low achievement with more resources or changing how teachers and schools are judged? 

Elephant in the [Class] Room 

It would be wise to stop, pause and consider why (and for whom) we aim to push through unchecked reforms. Are we missing the elephant in the room? What is it about white working class children that puts obstacles in their paths for achievement? Should our responses be 'politically challenging' rather than 'politically correct'? Is it okay to be critical of a consumerist, hedonistic culture that doesn't prioritise education? Can we honestly expect a completely universal educational approach/examinations system to work for all? Can we accept equality when we live is a society divided by class and race? Should political interventions be removed once and for all from education?

Malala Yousafzai commented a few weeks ago about British teenagers not appreciating their educational opportunities. She was right. I have seen schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan and know the conditions under which children learn. They aspire for better and in the most dangerous and poorly funded conditions, the fight for education is being bravely fronted by children. In comparison children in the UK are very fortunate and to have a public educational culture that is supported by a generous financial investment per pupil that remains amongst the highest in the world. Isn't a quality, free education a very real golden opportunity that some are simply giving up?

There is an elephant in the room. Are we prepared to admit it?

Find out more about Education Reform here

History of Education in the UK: Wikipedia
Arc of Underachievement: BBC
The Underclass: Prisma

... On Being "British" ...

I feel like I am being forcibly drawn into a debate that whilst at the one end of my personal spectrum, I actually do care about, but feel much has been said and little done about, and on the other end of my spectrum, I don't give a monkeys over. It's as if I've reached an impasse - I'm secure in myself and I will do what I need to do, live the way that I need to live and all without apology.

The debate in question is this documentary and the suggestion is that, like many northern ex-industrial English cities, Bradford is in economic sink, unpopular and religiously and racially segregated. I hasten to add that whilst I have not yet seen the programme and have no real intention to see it any time soon, this is not the first time this has been said about the place. There's no denying it - the truth is, it feels like an abandoned place and polarisation is very real.

The documentary has as the local council PR people and the regional media in flaps - but something tells me that it is less the reality of racial division and more the fact that it is being discussed in a very public sphere that is ruffling feathers. Ostrich feathers, I may add, since for too long, there has been much denial and the only investment in the city has been mediocrity. That last trait is the one thing that post-Thatcherite Britain finds very difficult in accepting of itself.

The counter claim by the local PR machine is lifted from the text of the Emperors New Clothes. That is, to see what isn't there. The claim, that the city is a culturally diverse place (i.e. melas and curries) - is patronising, at best. This is not London or New York, nor Mumbai, Karachi or Singapore, not that any of those is perfect or has race and equality completely figured. The difference is those places represent something of a melting pot and offer new, emergent identities.

I also don't get what it is to be British. I've tried and not succeeded at understanding this. I don't think many of the 'natives' understand it any better, to be frank. Over the years, I have seen the same liberals and working professionals who claim to love the 'cultural diversity' of places like Bradford, join the white flight to the suburban and semi-rural outskirts, thus decreasing real contact with the immigrants who moved in. They are complicit in the racism. And they are the ones whom I really distrust. The PR people and the media, thus, can in my opinion, jolly well shut up.

Significant numbers of that first wave of Pakistani Kashmiri and Bengali immigrants to British cities lived as the dinosaurs did - completely ill-equipped for the changes that were about to happen next, and it was just as disappointing to see the Brits - at the forefront of cultural contact through the reach of their empire - assume a supposed cultural/moral/racial high ground and reject the opportunity of coexistence with migrants coming in. Neither process of adjustment would have been easy, but without 'white' sticking power, populations just drifted apart. It happens everywhere, not just Europe, but here one feels it so much more than other places. The British response has been worse because they've never truly confronted their own angst and overall, no-one sitting in local or national government has really helped. I thus qualify what I said about this topic in my first paragraph - disconnection keeps me out of the politics, and offers me protection. I live as I do, with my own sense of identity.

Riot and Reason

No doubt over the ensuing weeks there will considerable debate over the reasons that seemingly opportunist riots broke out on the streets of the UK and why failures in policing allowed anarchy and fear to follow.

Some will look to blame the encrypted messaging such as that offered by Blackberry and the organisational power of Twitter. These mediums were, of course, pointed to the reason that the Arab Spring became such a formidable force of people power. Applauded by the UK then, but rather ironic when the tables are turned.

There has, alas, been loss of life as a result the riots, and in no way do I think that any of this should be trivialised. There has been damage to property and livelihoods, to individuals and communities. As always they are foremost and our thoughts are with them.

This article by Max Hastings speaks candidly. Much of it says what many people already think but find difficult to express to regular media channels. It is worth a read for a key opinion at least.

More interestingly, I am interested in public standards generally. Surely that is what separates civil society from outright despair and anarchy. Consider two opinions on standards. The first comes from the article and is also quoted on the BBC:

"Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential. Most of us would say this is nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live."

A second opinion by David Wilson, Professor of Criminology at Birmingham City University and a former prison governor considers the culture of entitlement in the UK. See here.

"It's not just about the underclass - it's about politicians, it's about bankers, it's about footballers. It's not just about a particular class, it permeates all levels of society. When we see politicians claiming for flat-screen TVs and getting jailed for fiddling their expenses, it's clear that young people of all classes aren't being given appropriate leadership."

Quite.

London's Burning

A man is shot dead by the police under mysterious circumstances. The full story remains unclear and in the general summer mood of discontent, a community is outraged.

It starts with a peaceful  vigil - family seeking answers, but in the days following, rioters and looters, black, white, male and female described as "sheer criminals" by Theresa May MP seem to have taken a hold of London. Voices that protested the original shooting and the fatality are muted by the chilling images of anarchy.

Dear Politicians, Police, and Leaders of London, this is social breakdown with intrinsic political, economic and moral foundations. This is the society that you nurture and preside over - the society that we are all part of. The rioters are your children; the anarchists of your own flesh. Who is to blame, but society itself?