TEFS is about equality of opportunity for all students regardless of background, gender, disability or race.
University: UK: Access: Social Mobility: Government: Fairness: Equality: Equity: College: School: Education: Higher Education: Further Education
Subscribe to this blog
Follow by Email
Search This Blog
Social Mobility Commission – “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”
A revamped Social Mobility Commission (SMC) was launched last year with a promise of much greater things to come. It came after a long gap in its existence and the abject failure of its previous incarnation. Blame was laid firmly at the door of a neglectful government that starved it of resources.
TEFS (22nd March 2019 ‘Social Mobility Commission: Where are they?) recently reported little progress had been made and we are now in the middle of April 2019. It seems that once again the SMC has dropped below the parapet fearful, or simply unable, to come out and fight for the people that need fairness the most. The SMC web site is still lacking in important information. The declarations of interest of the SMC board members still dates back to 2016. Despite the promise of monthly meetings, there appears to have been none reported since January as of today. A February meeting was intended to be a regional meeting. At the outset of the relaunch the government stated that, “in March, will set out their annual State of the Nation assessment of social mobility in Great Britain.” There is little sign of it.
Whilst unfortunate circumstances can stall meetings, and we wish anyone who is unwell a speedy recovery, a sound organisation must continue with an effective backup plan. If the secretariat has been diverted to Brexit related work, then it would seem that social mobility is not a high priority for government. If members of the SMC are too busy to attend meetings, then they might consider stepping down.
Attitudes to social mobility must change.
Social mobility may mean different things to different people. The OECD describes social mobility as: “the extent to which individuals move up (or down) the social ladder compared with their parents”. The Sutton Trust says it is “how someone’s adult outcomes relate to their circumstances as a child”. In the past, it might have been taken somewhat more literally in relation to acquiring a job by using a bicycle. The conservative Employment Secretary Norman Tebbit also said in relation to the Thatcher government that, “Parliament must not be told a direct untruth, but it’s quite possible to allow them to mislead themselves.” This may easily be the bye line of the current government that convinces itself that all is well with our society and that contrary evidence can be brushed under the carpet. However, it seems that by the end of last year, some attitudes might have changed.
Off to a flying start.
The relaunch of the Social Mobility Commission last year was supposed to herald a rejuvenation of the cause of improving social mobility in the UK. Our country has a poor track record in this respect as evidenced from reports from the Sutton trust and the OECD. The situation has persisted for far too long and the urgency of the SMC’s task cannot be understated at this time.
The SMC launch on 11th December 2018 coincided with the publication of a ‘Social Barometer’ report that covered public attitudes to the issue. The new chair, Dame Martina Milburn said: “We are a group of people with real-life experiences who are prepared to challenge government, business and society as a whole, to create a fair system where people can thrive.” The plan was clear. The twelve new commissioners would have up to £2 million released by government for research projects from April 2019. One might expect the evidence base of their work to improve dramatically. Emphasis for the first period was to be on vocational education and skills. By last month the SMC should have produced its annual ‘State of the Nation assessment of social mobility in Great Britain.’ Neither report or calls for research projects have emerged.
What did 2019 bring?
The first meeting of the SMC on the 18th of December 2018 was reported in notes from the following meeting of 25th January 2019. The immediate response of any observer was one of deflation and lowered expectations. Indeed, three of the twelve commissioners did not turn up; a bad sign for a first meeting in anyone’s book.
Two important reports in the SMC pipeline must have been prepared well before the new SMC was launched. The report on the ‘Adult Skills Gap’, promised in December, was released on 29th January 2019. It is especially notable in its failure to cite a key paper from the OECD last year on the main topic (see: Zwart, S. and M. Baker (2018), “Improving productivity and job quality of low-skilled workers in the United Kingdom”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1457, OECDPublishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/14dfd584-en). In science publishing, this would be seen as a major omission of pertinent evidence.
In addition, a long awaited report on ‘Elitist Britain’ carried out with the Sutton Trust in 2017 was not released. Instead the Sutton Trust are due to announce a further study in April 2019. However, a simple check of the Sutton Trust research report ‘Leading people 2016’ would suffice. A valuable ‘Employer research and toolkit’ report was discussed but a date for release was not determined.
The SMC Board agreed at the outset that it should “continue with the great work of the previous Commission”. Not a great aim in the light of its collapse. The sights were lowered even further with acknowledgement that the “social mobility landscape is crowded and they should be careful not stray into areas beyond its remit.” Surely the SMC should be leading the way and bringing all in the “social mobility landscape” together, not avoiding them. Even more contradictory was agreement that the “new Board would need to consider whether they wanted to revive any of the past recommendations that had not been acted upon and take them forward.” There are a total of 188 recommendations from earlier work and none of the issues they addressed have gone away. So much for continuing the “great work”.
The annual report for 2018/19 is now eagerly awaited as their plans eventually emerge. One thing they might consider in a proactive manner is the OECD report of 2018 ‘A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility’. Therein lies a clear action template based upon existing research.
By May 2018, Robert Halfon had brought forward a ‘ten minute rule’ Bill to Reform the Social Mobility Commission on behalf of the House of Commons Education Committee (reported by TEFS 24th May 2018 ‘Justice for the Social Mobility Commission: A fresh start?’). Their aim was to strengthen the commission. Under the banner of a ‘Social Justice Commission’ he called for much greater powers. It is worth looking at his presentation below again in the light of recent inaction from the SMC. That this fell by the wayside says more about the prevailing government attitude than the genuine concerns and determination of the Education Committee.
In the context of ‘Goldfinger’, Ian Fleming observed that: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”. Mike Larkin, retired from Queen's University Belfast after 37 years teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics.
UPDATE 8th August 2020 Things are moving fast today with severe criticism mounting about Ofqual and SQA, and urgent action is needed. TEFS has laid out ten points that should be considered to reverse out of the crumbling mess. Fairness should replace 'maintaining standards' as the primary objective. The government must cease trying to defend a system that acts as a barrier to the less advantaged.
Since posting yesterday, things have been moving fast. Today the Guardian put the examinations issue in large print on its front page with ‘Nearly 40% of A-level result predictions to be downgraded in England’. This conclusion came about after some great detective work by former medical statistician, Huy Duong, who analysed the data available and reconciled this with the Ofqual announcement that there could have been a 12% inflation in higher grades. It seems that Ofqual have been caught red handed and "Duong’s findings were privately confirmed to the Guardian by exam officials”…
The measures taken today by the UK government mean that many small businesses will be forced to close and lay off their workers. With people voluntarily staying away from bars, restaurants and clubs, the impact will be profound. The government will be judged by how it supports people most affected and this will be their legacy. Since the majority employ students as part-time workers, it seems they will be hit especially hard. Add to this the loss of part-time work within universities rapidly shutting down many operations, and the effect will be catastrophic for those in most need. Even PhD students robbed of their pay from casual teaching that they rely upon will be affected. TEFS now calls upon universities and government to step in to help those affected. Emergency hardship funds should be urgently deployed. Having to drop out or fail courses because of lack of support is not an option. Loss of funding and rent arrears will be the ‘straws that break the camel’s back’. The measure of…
UPDATE: Augar Speaks out Today, Friday 8th May 2020, Philip Augar broke cover and commented on the financial crisis in our universities in the Financial Times. With 'The time is ripe to reform UK university finance' he acknowledged that "Covid-19-related disruption may now mean that such a fee cut would be too destabilising". He is looking to a new post-COVID-19 world and he must be listened to. The likelihood of the government's response to his report last year diverging far from its recommendations looms. Augar has offered alternative options for funding Universities in his article for the Financial Times today (8th May 2020). His input is welcome at this time and the government should be bringing him into the fold again. TEFS has argued for a comprehensive review of university finances that goes well beyond simply looking at students and fees with: "Therefore, a working group involving students (such as NUS), staff (such as UCU) university managements (such…