Middle class July 25, 2012
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Economy, The Left.trackback
Reading last week or the week before in the UK media about some captain of the financial industry brought down by hubris and whatever I was very struck by a comment which noted that the man understood what it was to ‘work’ and the concerns of ordinary people having spent his first couple of summers working on the shop floor of a local company. His own parents were, if I recall correctly, academics so his own class position was middle class, or there or thereabouts.
What was striking was the assumption that simply by working (and self-evidently for a relatively brief period of time) in such a context he had a genuine insight into the problems faced by those in the working class. It’s not that that’s not possible to some degree, but it seemed to me that he fell prey to the common misconception that some have (and telling that the point even had to be made, obviously it was made to try to narrow the gap between the astronomical sums being discussed and the lives of most of us).
But it was clear from the profile that he was in essence helicoptered in and out again. He would have qualifications, experience and family and class connections upon which to draw if times got tough. These aren’t inconsiderable things. Of course as an individual he could fail. That’s a given. And in some respects he failed big, if I recall the article. But as part of a cohort his life chances were incomparably better. And that’s the distinction. I don’t quite understand why that concept is so difficult to grasp for some. But it’s something, clearly, that has to be said time and again.
Middle class. I go for workingclass if you have to work by hand or brain. Alas, many who work by brain do not regard themselves as workingclass even when in unions. Hence so many Associations rather than unions in titles of unions.
I worked in factory jobs when a student. I know that I never had to physically work as hard again.I keep it in my mind. I knew it was for a summer and not for my life. I also know that because I was public sector I had a certain job and illness security.Many physical type jobs leave people destroyed by 50. There is a difference between alienation and wasted bodies.
Becoming an exploiter. Not reserved for certain types like above. outer who runs Stagecoach was a bus driver and is a hard boss.
Wealth does buy connections and a good “start” for at least a few generations. Seemingly a lot of land in the UK is owned by descendants of the Norman invaders.
Education is a good way of passing on relative priviledge.Hence the sacrifices made by many (sometimes not wisely). Here and across the water the breakthrough in education is being reversed.Back to education for the rich and barriers for the poor.The saga of the grammar school kid making good is now over.This was driven by Labour controlled councils and a huge aspirational culture in workingclass areas (at least the ones which had a fighting tradition). Without this aspirational culture I feel that a lot of effort is wasted.
Jim good point about the importance of education and how Labour used to be the party of the aspirational working class and Grammar schools. I have a kid in primary school in East London and I want him to be pushed academically. Unfortunately it’s an inner city area with average secondary schools. I don’t have the money like the socialist Dianne Abbott to send him to private school. So I often consider if the return of Grammar schools would be a good thing. There are too few at the moment so they are dominated by middle class kids who’s parents send to extra tuition classes to pass the eleven plus exam.
Thats an interesting thought, given the traditional antipathy on the left towards elite/selective secondary education.
Is the idea that elite schooling is fine, as long as access to the high-performing institution isnt gated by:
ability to pay a tuition fee
adherence to a particular faith
residence in a designated area
membership of a connected family
random selection (as is the case for charter schools in the US)
but instead is based more on the aspirations of the parent and the ability of the child (as measured, subjectively)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/25/education-choice-and-privilege
Richard, Grammar schools are part of the state system.
I am well aware of this. The point made by the letter is that a state system that segregated children in terms of grammar schools and secondary moderns -which is what advocates of grammar schools want- would have deprived a generation of children of ‘a full and rounded education, and to pursue a career of their choice, academic or otherwise’.
Totally agree, the key is to have excellent, well resourced schools in areas of multiple deprivation with teachers who have high expectations of the children that attend. But that is where the debate begins. As noted in a post above and the article in the Guardian you highlight, the liberal left in Britain have no wish to send their children to the comprehensives in these areas.
There’s a nice phrase in the first letter there, about ‘having children’s commonality in mind rather than their parents’ income brackets’ – what’s interesting about this debate is how it so often revolves around what the attitudes of middle class parents is towards the type of school they might send their children to.
Part of this is down to the increasing commodification of education, its media coverage and the growing sense that it is not about flourishing (to use a much abused word these days) but about a) meeting sorting function requirements and b) acquiring for yourself, or for your child, an exclusive piece of educational pie.
I would question the assumption that someone who seeks to secure an exclusive education for their child -by upholding privileges and sending them to private school or whatever- is part of the left in any real sense (which is not to deny such people’s real and considerable influence on educational policy), given that they don’t have ‘children’s commonality in mind’ at all.
<i< the liberal left in Britain have no wish to send their children to the comprehensives in these areas.
The liberal left in Britain do, largely, send their children to comprehensives.
@Colm
It not uncommon on the British left for there to be tension between the desire to impose a particular educational model on other peoples children, while reserving the right to choose a different model for ones own children.
To my mind this speaks more to control issues, as opposed to any kind of genuine belief in the educational model advocated for.
@Richard
Education policy being driven primarily with ‘children’s commonality in mind’ simply doesnt jibe with competitive entry to third level, nor with a competitive job market.
Commodification is inescapable in that sense, and its better to leverage middle class parents ambition for their kids to remain in the middle class, and indeed the kind of upwardly-mobile working class aspirations mentioned above. Rather than trying to eliminate choice and specialization in education, it would be preferable to concentrate on making access fairer and more transparent.
“It does seem curious to curse the private schools for thriving in a market while enthusiastically rewarding bankers for doing so…A society divided by wealth and inheritance cannot redress this injustice by camouflaging it in educational institutions – by denying distinctions of ability or by restricting selective opportunity – while favouring a steadily widening income gap in the name of the free market. This is mere cant and hypocrisy.”
Tony Judt, The Memory Chalet
All schools should be public. I think we should look at the German system. They stream but it is not for ever. They also and this is important cherish and spend on non academic education. The British system which we share despises technical skills. The outcomes in the German system are much better for the “bottom” two thirds as a consequence.
I think as well as class we should look at why certain groups “over achieve” and under achieve. EG Ugandan Asians and Leitrim.
I would question whether special needs kids should be mainstreamed.
Let us do a compare and contrast across Europe. School Year, exam system, spread of subjects etc.
On the special needs kids in mainstream, both my spouse (teacher) and my kids (students) believe this is a very good idea, both fro the perspective of the special needs kids themselves in that they benefit from everyday routine interaction with normal needs kids, and from the perspective of the normal needs kids who learn to see that the special needs kids actually aren’t all that “special” in the PC/negative sense of the word. In other words it ensures that whatever barriers there might be due to residual societal prejudices are broken down as much as possible. There are probably limits, as in any situation.
In an ideal world yes. But in this world there are no schoolyard bullies and an inspirational chat stops bullying and we all hug.
No Jim, that’s the real world of local village National Schools and post-primary community schools run by the local VEC.
Understandably,class is very important in any debate on education.Compulsion never seems to enter the debate except when people want t o excoriate school Irish.We might soon have a referendum on children’s rights which will involve no children in the debate,they will have no vote naturally enough,and we’ll all congratulate ourselves on how wonderful it is to have a clause in the Constitution on children’s rights.
How relevant is school to the daily life of its students?What is the point in learning about algebra?I mean this in a transformative way and not in a nakedly utilitarian way.The only meaningful answer to this is schools are about social control and not education.Providing,at a huge cost,a compliant and obedient workforce for multinationals.
Teaching of algebra as a agent of social control?
Eh, no.
Algebra is one of the first steps on the road to mathematical fluency.
Not developing this fluency in kids simply leads to seriously underdeveloped abstract reasoning skills … not an assertive and independently-minded workforce.
I fail to see how useful skills make for compliancy. If the bosses for calling for ethics classes which preached the virtues of capitalism and tax dodging and other ideological things possibly. Is there something wrong in equipping people on what they need to make a living. Is it elitist to want to make sure as far as possible that your kids get a job. A job does not necessarily mean selling ones soul. Even a socialist Ireland freed from multinationals will ave to pay its way in the world.
Bartley,how do you know that?
Fergal, I would have to disagree. A knowledge of maths is very important for a rounded education. Indeed, Greek philosophers developed many of the mathematical formulae still used today as they grappled with an understanding of the structure of the world. If more citizens had a good understanding of mathematics they would better understand how the financial system is destroying the economy.
Agree. Mathematics is also vital to developing a clear and concise view of arguments and, thus, is a powerful tool for the critic.
Colm-understand your point about the Greeks.My point is really about compulsion.”Compelling” people to learn algebra is the issue,does it work?If a person’s not ready to learn something they’re not ready to learn it,no matter how good it is for them.If I’m forced to do something I don’t like I normally give up after a few minutes or walk away from it,the child has to sit there and learn,whether he gets it or not,because it’s for his own good..”to better understand the financial system” to “develop abstract reasoning skills”.The Greeks understood this and never compelled students to listen to them as they walked around Athens,you could come and go as you pleased.To sum up,schools do not place the learner at the centre of education and I’m not even sure they can
Laim Smullen
Instead just opposing fees at third level, calling more money in primary schools and increasing in the students grant, shouldn’t the focus be on fairer admissions systems in our top universities as means of social mobility.
A fresh start would to aim to retain the same class balance that exists in primary schools into secondary schools or basely ensure all a social classes mix/go to the same schools. Basically
to ensure no mono class secondary schools.
A second reform could of the points system which does not measure intelligence but pair support for rote learning within the class system. Hence the continuous dominance of
trustafarians, females and students from rural background in high points courses.
Perhaps a system of weighting the different class backgrounds of prosecute students is
to accept lower income background students with lower points than trustafarians. But proved these lesser points were as a result of lower grades of clearly rote learned relevant subjects such art history/Irish to study chemistry or physics or Vice versa.
In Britain this has being part of the process. The Irish universities heads still haven’t come up with proposals for fairer admissions Quinn was expecting from them as part of his reform of the points race.
Fair access to Scotland’s universities ‘decades away’ says NUS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18968849
There is a problem with “fair” access. In the third level body I teach in we have many assisted students from the North. No fees and they keep benefits. The drop out rate is huge. Aside from say having the maths or language skills and levels needed there are other problems. These are partly class driven. And start very early. Failure to develop a personal discipline. Lots of reasons for this. An extreme example of a cultural problem. The murder in Salford. A dropout kills a motivated Indian student whose parents ( poor by most Irish standards from a country with damn all free education).
I go back to my point why?
And a lottery would be better than interviews. There is enough petty snobbery and corruption as it is.
Hence the continuous dominance of trustafarians, females and students from rural background in high points courses.
Agreed the current system is rife with fakery, but I cant see why rural students would be favoured in any way by that. Can you explain?
Perhaps a system of weighting the different class backgrounds of prosecute students is to accept lower income background students with lower points than trustafarians.
This form of positive discrimination is very problematic.
For a start it paints all third level students from working-class background with the same brush – including those who would have secured a place by right without any handicapping.
Secondly, the question arises as to how far you can lower the bar without bringing into question the students ability to complete the course.
It would be far better to skew the points metric back towards measuring innate ability as opposed to the current system of rewarding rote learning.
The problem however is far too many stakeholders are invested in the current system. Its far easier to coach for the test rather than genuinely inspire students. There are far more side-opportunities to monetize expertise in faking a predictable exam requiring only regurgitation than an unpredictable exam measuring critical reasoning ability. Grade inflation allow education bureaucrats to claim all manner of non-existent value-add. I could go on …
It’s interesting that talk of the middle classes turns into a talk about education. The implied assumption is that qualifications automatically gives one the ability to attain middle class status and or at least the social mobility to do so, and that one naturally wishes to use education in this manner often to the exclusion of all else.
Of course, someone with no formal education whatsoever can still accumulate substantial wealth and leap-frog the middle classes altogether; becoming the wielder of power rather than its object. Leaving aside this fact, and leaving aside that education doesn’t necessarily equate into one being educated (not in well rounded experiential use of education), it seems that modern education, relying so heavily upon utilitarian qualifications, is a mode for self justification for one’s position relative to the dictats of the capitalist class.
I think Jim Monaghan’s comments were pointing in a somewhat similar direction. Who’s more useful to society in the long run? A joiner both educated in her craft and with a purposeful sense of social history, creating useful items for society and understanding her place and role in society, or a librarian with qualifications up the Liffey but with a sense of privilege and only a predisposition to perpetuate their social position at cost to those below them. (I know plenty of good, well-rounded librarians who do sterling service in the public domain. I also know quite a few shite joiners.)
I’m beginning to feel somewhat sorry for those who feel the need to attain the middle class moniker. It seems like a negative proposition all around. Often their only solace is to deride the workers, the poor, the working poor, the part timers and unemployed to give them a positional sense of worth. At the same time, they always become aware of their tenuous position relative to capital. Their worth is only valued as use value to capital accumulation schemes.
Coming from the working class, and often being within the working class, I’ve seen the transformation of working class children who obtain the much coveted qualification. Many adopt a liberal attitude to social norms but just as readily adopt in an ill-liberal attitude to power relationships, rushing head-on into the need to support inequity at its most fundamental economic level to justify their new positional status. As I’ve become older I see myself in them – what I did and what I aspired to become. And I just can’t help thinking who the feck wants to be in the middle? Even on a risk-reward basis its not a sound place to be. The rewards are becoming increasingly tenuous while the risks become more palpable by the day. There must be a better way to use and value education, surely?
@Bartley
‘Education policy being driven primarily with ‘children’s commonality in mind’ simply doesnt jibe with competitive entry to third level, nor with a competitive job market.’
Sure, I’d agree with that: why should education policy be driven primarily by competitive entry to third level or a competitive labour market (as far as I know it’s not the jobs that are getting traded but labour power as a commodity)?
It makes a lot of sense to gear educational policy -as far as this concerns children- towards children’s common concerns -schools with decent facilities, high education standards, motivated teachers and an environment in which each child can develop their abilities to the full. This is not at all the case with a system split in terms of grammar / secondary modern systems or however you care to name the schools, since it develops a two tier education system that consigns large numbers of children (and their teachers, and their schools, in a spiral of self-fulfilling prophecy) to the category of failure. Of course, if what we’re interested in is the formation of an educational oligarchy, then this is an excellent thing. But in terms of democracy I don’t see the benefits myself.
‘Commodification is inescapable in that sense, and its better to leverage middle class parents ambition for their kids to remain in the middle class’
Well, it’s not inescapable. There are substantial policy choices that can be made. I wonder: if there was a policy decision made to ‘leverage middle class parents ambition’, what kind of person would make that decision? A middle class parent policymaker or legislator? What you are advocating here, of course, is using the education system to entrench class domination. Why you think this is better I have no idea.
@crocodile
I’m not sure what Judt was getting at with the ‘denying distinctions of ability or restricting selective opportunity’ claim, or of its relevance to the discussion: comprehensive schools do not deny distinctions of ability – on the contrary, they are supposed to cater for all abilities, which is why you have streaming, remedial classes, and so on. As for restrictions on selective opportunity, I don’t really know what he’s talking about here – can you elaborate?
Haven’t got Judt’s book to hand so may be misrepresenting him, but my understanding is that he bases his remarks on two things: his own positive experience of grammar school in postwar Britain – and his poor opinion of the calibre of undergraduates he was teaching towards the end of his career.
Broadly, he believes that very few people – an ‘elite’ – are intellectually capable of really benefiting from university education, and that the best way of identifying that elite is to have a free primary and secondary system which is at all stages competitive and selective. He identifies with the working class student who is intelligent and strongly motivated, does not have the financial means for private education and isn’t catered for in the comprehensive system. I don’t think he’d disagree that comprehensives are ‘supposed
to cater for all abilities’, but he’d argue that they fail the most able.
As for ‘streaming, remedial classes and so on’, I don’t really know about the UK, but both streaming and remedial classes are endangered species in the Irish system – the favoured option being ‘differentiation’, or teaching students of all abilities together without any diminution in learning quality. Nice thought – and, of course, cheaper.
“Nice thought – and, of course, cheaper.”
But is it really cheaper? There are still the same numbr of students to be catered for, the question is the teacher to student ratio which I think you seem to be suggesting is adjusted upwards by lumping the kids all into classrooms of mixed ability. I don’t know if that holds true though, because I know some schools institute team-teaching in the classroom order to allow the faster kids to push ahead with one teacher while the kids that find it harder going get additional attention from the second teacher. Carried to the next step, for kids with learning difficulties, there is also the additional cost of SNAs. So I don’t know honestly if there’s any significant economic benefit to the school management or Dept of Ed in dropping streaming. You’d imagine there should be, and teh cynic in me likes to believe that they wouldn’t institute any reform inthe education system unless there was a cost-reduction involved, but maybe it’s not as clear cut as it might seem.
Just speaking from the experience of my partner, who teaches languages at secondary level, where classes aren’t streamed it becomes a nightmare for both pupils and teacher.
Even trying to plough a middle ground ability-wise means the weaker kids are still out of their depth while the stronger ones are effectively held back, so the only solution that’s fair to both groups is for her to split the class and try to pitch the teaching separately at the two groups. Which in turn means she’s to prepare two separate lessons while neither set of kids is getting a full class-worth of teaching time.
As for team-teaching, well as Ghandhi said about western civilisation: “That would be a great idea”. She certainly hasn’t had that luxury in recent years. The most assistance she’s had is from SNAs who are assigned to kids on a one-to-one basis, but when the Dept is cutting abck on SNAs, they’re certainly not gonna start doubling up on teacher numbers when the whole impetus is to push pupil:teacher ratios higher.
And an inspection will not accept the ‘two lesson plans’ solution: you’re supposed to use the same plan for all.
A few years ago, if you had 100 students in a year of whom a dozen were very weak in a particular subject, you could have 4 groups of 22 and a small one of 12, moving more slowly and with more individual attention. Now you have 4 groups of 25, randomly mixed. 4 teachers instead of 5: that’s the saving.
I think the problems start from very early on. If a kid falls behind in primary, they will rarely catch up.We needs the SNAs. In I think Boston, special catch up summer courses are mandatory.If the teachers of the low and high infants classes could be used in the afternoons to help those who need it, this would be useful.
Letv us guarnatee that every kid gets a decent primary education. This would feed through to second and third level without much reform there.