Introduction
In the chapter tenth of his book, as we can see, David Willetts discusses the importance of schools and social mobility and lists so many references which can strongly support his viewpoint.
People all want to give the best chance to their children——the next generation. Talking about the opportunity of the next generation, education and social structure is a unavoidable topic, specifically schools and social mobility. This essay will discusses to what extent schools and social mobility effect the next generation’s future. A moral argument said children will have a better chance to achieve success if they access to a good school (Willetts, 2011). Moreover social mobility indicate social equality in some way, since immobility will increases inequality and inequality makes mobility harder (Willets, 2011). If the society is inequality and unfair, how could we guarantee a better future for our children? Thus it is important for us to understand the role schools and social mobility plays in children’s future. To answer the question, this essay will refers to the chapter tenth of the book: The pinch: how the baby boomers took their children’s future – and why they should give it back, which was written by David Willetts.
When we consider social mobility itself, we used to believe that social mobility is increasing steadily, as the society developing, however many of the evidences tell us the fact is not as we expect. Jo Blanden Steve Machin and Paul Gregg, their study focus on the the children from the richest 25 per cent families and the poorest 25 per cent families who born in 1958 and 1970. They measure the chance of a child from the richest quartiles families or the poorest quartiles families then ending up him or her in each quartile of the income scale. The result turn out shock many people. It states the social mobility had declined that the trend is in a wrong direction. John Goldthorpe gives out one explanation of why we will believe social mobility is improved but fact is opponent (Goldthorpe, 1999). He suggests that social mobility upward is driven by many people change their job to white-collar job and there are more white-collar jobs on the market than before. But if the expansion of white-collar jobs slow down, it would have negative effect on social mobility. Willetts shows that the leading white-collar jobs is harder for young people from less affluent backgrounds (Willetts, 2011). This is another evidence that social mobility decreased. Biologically, bright people tend to earn more and they tend to have bright kids. It biologically wider the gap between rich and poor. Goldthorpe also point out that if a children from a less affluent families want to succeed, he or she need an IQ 15 per cent points higher (Goldthorpe, 1999). Some argue that soft skills matter more on social mobility fall than cognitive skills (Galindo-Rueda and Vignoles, 2005). Because soft skills is about education and education have directly affect on people’s income (Blanden, Gregg and Macmillan, 2007). In addition, when predicting children’s educational attainment, analyst their soft skills—-application is more important than their cognitive skills—-IQ (Roberts, 2009). Lastly, Willetts suggests that environment is a factor can not be ignored, since children from a poor background family tend to live in a bad environment which would restricted their growth and development. Consequently, it makes this children chase the leading kids harder, in someway slow down the social mobility (Willetts, 2011).
Many people believe that education is a kind of investment about future and schools work best in transmit the culture, thinking way and knowledge from a generation to the next. Social mobility is one of tasks of school, however according to David Willetts, the education system is not spreading social advantage but entrenching it (Willetts, 2011). One evidence is the study of Professor Leon Feinstein, he claims that after age of 11 the children from affluent social economic backgrounds will lead those from modest backgrounds in cognitive skills, even thought they are less intelligent when they were 2 years old (Feinstein, 2003). Another evidence is more powerful, Their study shows that children from poor backgrounds are already fallen when they start school (Burgess and Briggs, 2006). It is understandable that parents always trying to provide the best to their children. Increasing the chance for children get into good schools is a way to improve social mobility and benefit many families. To do so, David Willetts gives 3 main options. The first one is to get more control over school admissions policies. Secondly, introduce school vouchers to empower parents to choose the good schools. Lastly, make set up a new schools easier, created the mechanisms to rise the number of good schools which parents want.
A university degree is the ticket for a decent job. The number of university places have a significant increase over the last 4 decades. However, the result is not as our expectation. Indeed, there are many teenagers have opportunity to go to university, but according to the data given by Government statistical service 1979 and 1992, the expansion of university education change the male to female ratio greatly. It has much more influence on women than on men. More in-depth analysis (Machin and Vignoles, 2004), there more girls from high-income family getting to university than those from low-income family. The gap become wider with the expansion of university. In other word, for women, the expansion of education should take the major responsibility for the fall in social mobility (Willetts, 2011). Moreover, a high-level educated female are more likely not to have married by the age of 45 than a high-level educated male, since they expect to marry with a similar level of education man (Macmillan, 2007). Consider about households, the well-paid, well-educated women tend to marry with well-paid and well-educated men. With the expansion of education, the number of well-paid and well-educated women increase, it makes the gap between will-off households and poor households even wider. Consequently, the society will less equal and more immobile.
Willetts believe that England’s school to work system is diverse and society is more mobile but it is not working as well as it should be. He pointed out that one of the reason is young people lack of ambition or drive. Another explanation is there are not enough advice and mentoring for young person. A study stated this is maybe less about raising aspirations, but more about providing the means to achieve the goal (Hayward, Wilde and Williams, 2008). Compare with immigrant families, researchers claim that the students and their parents will performance better if they could see the directly relevant between education and job opportunity. According to the survey (Currie etc., 2008), there are many teenagers gained advice and guidance for their friends or peers and (Ireland, Golden and Morris, 2006) over half of 17-to-18-year-olds felt they do not obtained enough advice and guidance when they were making decision at 18. Teenagers depend on people their own age will benefit those who have rich networks but suffer others (Willetts, 2011). Since the teenagers from affluent families naturally come from rich networks, the teenagers from poor families fall behind again.
Everybody deserve a second chance, even our brain can grow and regrow (Lehrer, 2007). Taxi driver is a powerful proof. Their brains are not born like that, it has developed by demand and environment. As (Blakemore, 2006) said, our brain is suitable for life-long learning and well adapt to the environment. Thus, it is a possible and worth investment that a person obtain educational rehabilitation in his or her adulthood. Continuously learning is a efficient way for people from a less affluent backgrounds to chase those from affluent families.
Conclusion
In conclusion, schools and social mobility are two significant factors impact on next generation’s future. As the study of Steve Machin, Paul Gregg and Jo Blanden, social mobility was declined. Many studies, for example, bright people tent to earn more as well as their children (Goldthorpe, 1999), children from a less affluent background demand a higher IQ to achieve success (Galindo-Rueda and Vignoles, 2005), are the evidence support and explain this argument. Many people agree that education is the best way to improve social mobility. However, there are two researches from Professor Feinstein (2003) and Burgess (2006) respectively strongly point out that education system is not spreading social advantage as people’s expectation but entrenching it. As the expansion of university thousands of young people benefit from it. But in fact, according to the data given by government statistical service, female is the major beneficiary groups. More specifically, the percentage of women from high-income families are much higher than those from low-income families (Machin and Vignoles, 2004). As a result, the expansion of university is actually falling the social mobility. Still, we have many methods to help our children for a better future. Admittedly, compare to other countries, England’s society is more mobile (Willetts, 2011). But our young generation lack of ambition or drive. Providing enough advice and guidance is a way to improve their ambition. Additionally, we could raise social mobility by helping our young people build up consciousness of life-long learning.
Reference
Goldthorpe, J., 1999. Class Inequality and Meritocracy: A Critique of Saunders and an Alternative Analysis. The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 50(1), pp. 1–27.
Galindo-Rueda, F., Vignoles, A., 2005. The Declining Relative Importance of Ability in Predicting Educational Attainment. Journal of Human Resources, vol. 40(2), pp. 335–53.
Blanden, J., Gregg, P., and Macmillan, L., 2007. Accounting for Intergenerational Income Persistence: Non Cognitive Skills, Ability and Education. Economic Journal, vol. 117 (519), pp. 43–60.
Roberts, Y., 2009. Grit: The Skills for Success and How They are Grown. Young Foundation.
Feinstein, L., 2003. Inequality in the Early Cognitive Development of Children in the Early 1970 Cohort. Economica, vol. 70, pp. 73–97.
Burgess, S., Briggs, A., 2006. School Choice and Social Mobility. School Assignment, CMPO 06/157.
Government Statistical Service, 1979 and 1992. Education Statistics for the United Kingdom.
Machin, S., Vignoles, A., 2004. Educational Inequality: The Widening Socio-Economic Gap Fiscal Studies, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 107–28.
Macmillan, P., 2007. Office for National Statistics. Focus on Families.
Hayward, G., Wilde, S., and Williams, R., 2008. Engaging Youth Enquiry: Consultation Report. Rathbone/Nuffield Review.
Currie, C., Gabhainn, S., Godeau, E., Roberts, C., Smith, R., Currie, R., Picket, W., Richter, M., Morgan, A., and Barnekow, V., 2008. Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit. University of Edinburgh
Ireland, E., Golden, S., and Morris, M., 2006. Evaluation of Integrated Aimhigher: Tracking Surveys of Young People. DfES and National Foundation for Educational Research, Research Report 811, p. 44.
Lehrer, J., 2007. Proust was a Neuroscientist. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Baldwin, S., 1937. On England. Penguin, p. 13.