The recent blog post from Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission policy chief Peter Brant has caused more harm than good. He argued that the a significant barrier to working class young people being more successful at university and in their professional careers is because of specific barriers including ‘lack of shared cultural experiences (eg places visited, plays seen, hobbies participated in)’ as well as the ‘differences between working and middle-class lifestyles (eg food, restaurants, clothes)’.
While it created national debate, it has compounded the problem social mobility campaigners like me face on a frequent basis. Mr Brant’s core argument is that working-class children need to ‘sound’ and ‘act’ more like middle-class children. This is achieved by travelling, going to the opera and (presumably) spending money their parents do not have, thanks in part to this government’s cost of living crisis. By not changing themselves to fit in with middle-class children, working-class children feel ‘out of place’ applying to university and succeeding in other ways.
This premise fails to understand the core points about social mobility. Social mobility is about the empowering the individual to have the self-belief to aspire and attain regardless of background.
I have been working on social mobility programmes for over ten years. Whether using school debating as a medium to mentor or by coaching entrepreneurialism, the focus is on allowing young people to empower themselves through finding their strengths and their own voice. As a lawyer, when I interview people it is those abilities, together with their aptitude and drive that shine through, not having the confidence to know your Aida from your Aldi.
The second important point to foster the social mobility that is key to ensuring we have a future generation of aspiring, self-reliant, empowered people is an equality of opportunity. To ensure that no one is left behind.
That is why Labour is on the right side of the education debate. Ensuring that all students are able to flourish, regardless of postcode, is paramount to the Labour cause. Prioritising the confidence and self-belief in students is vital, rather than the Dickensian pessimism of Michael Gove. Our previous shadow secretary of state for education Stephen Twigg spoke passionately about debating in schools as a medium for empowerment. As a developer of the London Debate Challenge, I have seen the change such programmes can bring to school students, and the empowerment it brings.
That is also why Labour is on the right side of the welfare debate. It is why we are committed that young people are employed within two years of receiving benefit, ensuring everyone would have the dignity and empowerment that comes from earning money for yourself. It is why the Tory policy of dividing the nation between ‘shirkers’ and ‘workers’ is not just false, it is divisive and harmful to a future generation of working-class people forced to choose between faking it as middle-class or being stigmatised as a shirker. This is not right.
That is why I am standing as Labour’s parliamentary candidate in Chingford and Woodford Green: to make the case for fitting in because of self-belief and talent, not mimicry. Social mobility is the reason why a boy growing up in one bedroom council estate flat can work hard, travel the world, get a good job and even run for parliament. Not because it is what the bourgeois do, it is because I was empowered to do so by teachers and mentors. I am going to be helping our local candidates and then fighting my own campaign against Iain Duncan Smith by talking about these very issues. It would be great to see you out there with me.
We sometimes talk social mobility in the abstract. Let us remind ourselves what it means: it is about ensuring that all members of society, regardless of background, are given the chance to empower themselves and their families and to prosper, to succeed and help build a nation of communities spiralling upwards. Peter Brant’s commitment to the cause is great. However this time, it was not a case of how he said it, but what he said. More damagingly, it confuses the issue of empowerment with assimilation. It also detracts from the underlying points of tackling inequality and nurturing the most vulnerable in society. Luckily for us, Labour policy gets social mobility, welfare, equality and aspiration right.
—————————–
Bilal Mahmood is Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Chingford and Woodford Green and social mobility campaigner. He tweets @bilalmahmood13
—————————–
Photo: UK Parliament
I read the blog after the media reported on this at the start of the month and couldn’t see where Brant said that working-class kids need to be taught to act middle-class to get on. Really sloppy journalism (or – alternatively – the Telegraph clearly have an agenda here).
Instead the blog summarises another blog that a working-class entrant to Cambridge had written highlighting things that caused difficulties for her in fitting in and suggested that government policy needs to respond *in some way* to that as well as to try and close social class attainment gaps.
This is not a new idea – it has been found by much academic research, informs widening participation activities of universities and is a big theme of Pierre Bordieu’s writings: a key author in any Social Mobility 101. And it sounds like you agree that there are these barriers.
Brant concludes “However, tackling this issue is – of course – difficult and complicated and it is far from clear what an effective response to them would be” and “Another helpful thing would be developing a better understanding of what is necessary to help tackle these barriers. Any ideas?”. It doesn’t seem to me that he’s pushing the simple solution you ascribe to him.