A School of all the talents?
In 2014, the
Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission produced a report titled ‘Elite
Britain?’ detailing how the majority of institutions consist of people from the
same backgrounds.
The Chair, the
Right Hon. Alan Milburn, wrote in the foreword: ‘In a democratic society,
institutions – from the law to the media – derive their authority in part from
how inclusive and grounded they are. Locking out a diversity of talents and
experiences makes Britain’s leading institutions less informed, less
representative and, ultimately, less credible than they should be. Where
institutions rely on too narrow a range of people from too narrow a range of
backgrounds with too narrow a range of experiences they risk in behaving in ways
and focussing on issues that are of salience only to a minority but not to the
majority in society. Our research shows that it is entirely possible for
politicians to rely on advisors to advise, civil servants to devise policy
solutions and journalists to report on their actions having all studied the
same courses at the same universities, having read the same books, heard the
same lectures and even being taught by the same tutors.’
The findings
show that many people in the UK see this country as a place where hard work and
fairness is rewarded. The British Social Attitudes survey found that 95 per
cent of respondents agreed with ‘in a fair society every person should have an
equal opportunity to get ahead.’ In a 2013 poll by YouGov, 78 per cent thought
that ‘it should be the government’s job to ensure that rich and poor children
should have the same chances.’
However, the
statistics show that children from high income backgrounds are far more likely
to have high incomes as adults.
As a result of
their income, more of the people who have influence within our institutions are
likely to have attended independent schools (e.g. 71 per cent of senior judges,
45 per cent pf public body chairs, 62 per cent of senior armed forces officers)
and to have attended Oxbridge (e.g. 59 per cent of the Cabinet, 57 per cent of
Permanent Secretaries, 47 per cent of newspaper columnists).
In contrast, 88
per cent of pupils attend comprehensive schools and only 7 per cent are taught
at independent schools. Likewise, 62 per cent of the population have not been
to university, only 1 in 9 have been to a Russell Group university and less
than 1 in 100 have graduated from Oxbridge.
There is an
analysis of the Members of Parliament contained in the report. Ethnic
minorities are more than one in ten in the general population, but fewer than
one in twenty MPs are from BME backgrounds. Although 9 out of 10 pupils attend
comprehensive schools, fewer than 4 in 10 MPs attended these schools. Despite
making up more than half of the population, less than a quarter of the House of
Commons are women.
This report
then goes on to look at similar trends within the media and the public sector
(e.g. local government, armed forces, the judiciary). Even within pop music,
although the majority of ‘stars’ went to comprehensive schools (72 per cent),
there is still a disproportionate element that went to independent schools.
In law and
medicine, there is slow progress to equality of opportunity. However, there are
still 65 per cent of doctors in training who have at least one parent with a
degree, a third were privately educated and only 6 per cent grew up in the most
deprived areas of the UK.
Later on in the
foreword, Alan Milburn remarked: ‘To confront the challenges and seize the
opportunities that Britain faces, a broader range of experiences and relents
need to be harnessed. Few people believe that the sum total of talent in
Britain resides in just seven per cent of pupils in our country’s schools and
less than two per cent of students in our universities. The risk, however, is
that the more dominate our country’s leading institutions the less likely it is
the many believe they can make a valuable contribution. A closed shop at the
top can all too easily give rise to a “not for the likes of me” syndrome in the
rest of society.
‘Overcoming
declining levels of public engagement and trust in our country’s institutions
relies on them opening their doors to a broader range of talents.’
The danger with
the report is that it could dissuade, at best, those with the talents and
abilities to be involved in the mentioned institutions will refuse to do so
just because of their ‘privileged’ background. It could also oversimplify the
issue, for example, the statistic regarding doctors who had parents who had a
degree would merely show that intelligence was their genetic inheritance for
(for all we know) the father and/or mother could be working for a charity in a
voluntary or low paid role.
The issue is
further complicated by the rise of free schools run by charities and other
organisations. They are not attended by pupils from high income families, but
those schools would also be included in the category of ‘independent.’
The important
thing is that whatever position a person occupies, they are accountable and are
to be responsible to God. Paul reminds us that they are God’s servants (Romans
13: 4). It is how a person deals with the role that they find themselves in
which is the most important thing.
There are
examples in the Old Testament of good and bad kings, who used the power that
God had given to them in different ways. Throughout the Bible, we can see God
using people regardless of their social strata (e.g. Amos was a shepherd,
Elisha was the son of a wealthy farmer, Daniel was from a privileged
background, and Elijah’s background is unknown).
Surely, it is
the prayer of all that God will ‘give me neither poverty or riches, but give me
my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you, and say ‘Who is
the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonour the name of my
God.’ (Proverbs 30: 8 – 9)
We should have our
eyes firmly on God, regardless of what He gives us to do on this earth as we
will be accountable to Him when we leave it.
Comments