In this essay, I am going to examine the
inequalities that face our education system and how we should solve them. I
will discuss the consequences behind such inequalities, and name various
contributing factors to the ever growing issue. Furthermore, I will delve deep
into the realities that many people are suffering in the UK and the effects
that unequal education has had on our growing capitalised society, where sadly,
even facets such as education are taken into ones selfish greed, due to the
privatisation of schools.
The left wing Marxist would argue that
private schools are wrong, because the only way to guarantee fairness would be
to have everyone’s lives governed by the same thing: The Government. Opposing
Karl Marx would be Adam Smith. A right winged capitalist who believed that one
should live in the free market, and have some sort of inequality, in order for
humanity to progress. The things we do in the free market are not for others,
but for ourselves and this allows us to control our own lives with the money
that we make. This is perfectly acceptable, however a flaw in this argument
with regards to education is that it relies on the fact that everybody starts
on a level playing field and that simply is not the case. How is it truly fair
if we are not given the same tools to start with? As Karl Marx once said
“Democracy is the road to socialism”. In a democratic government, the people choose
what they think is right, and the power is not held by the few. However today,
the quality of education is unevenly distributed, so lower social classes do
not actually have a choice in the matter at all.
The idea of inequality, especially in
education, is present in so many literary works. Charles Dickens makes great
use of the issue in his novels, particularly in Great Expectations when we see Pip
struggling to better himself through his education, then all of a sudden being
given a large fortune, thus receiving a better education, because he actually
deserves it. Furthermore,
if we look at 20th century American
writers, the idea of struggling to better yourself and wanting success is
there, but many can’t do that, because they are not given the tools that get
you there. Many just expect to get lucky. This is present in Fitzgerald’s works,
such as The Great Gatsby. In The Great Gatsby, we witness Gatsby living his
luxurious lifestyle; the lifestyle that he was so obsessed with, as he was growing
up poor. Gatsby is so desperate to escape this lifestyle, that when he finally
is rich, he changes his name and lies about his past. This theme of desperately
seeking social mobility and a better future is present in a lot of American
literature. Another example would be John Steinbeck, and “The Grapes of the
Wrath” as the Joad family go through so many traumas, desperately trying to
survive. Furthermore, it is also present in “Of Mice and Men”, as George and
Lennie dream of owning their own house, and having all the other luxuries and
in fact, many of the other characters dream of getting something out of life
and working hard to get it.
We may not live in early 20th
century America, but the sad thing is that the issue of inequality is still
present in our modern society.
Bringing it to a more modern context, the way
wealth is currently distributed in the UK is frankly what I would call… unequal.
In the UK, the richest 20% own more than 60% of the whole of the UK’s wealth,
and the poorest 20% have 100 times less than that, having only 6% of the wealth
(The Guardian, 2013). To put it into perspective, out of every £10 in the UK,
the richest 20% will have £6, and the poorest 20% will have just 6p. Furthermore,
in a recent survey, the Office of National Statistics has said that the richest
1% of the UK have accumulated as much wealth as the poorest 55% of the
population (Office for National Statistics, May 2014). Understandably, in every
meritocratic society, some have more than others, but this has completely been
blown out of proportion. The scale is entirely imbalanced, and it is tipped in
favour of the wealthy. This huge economic gap is greatly affecting the
working-classes and is also growing.
Thomas Piketty, the French economist,
examines this issue nicely in his book “Capital In The 21st Century”.
He gives us a historical account of economic inequality, explaining that wealth
was only really distributed in a more egalitarian fashion during the time of
the first, and second wars, and during the depression. Only when there is very
little, is wealth equally distributed, which is quite interesting considering
the wealthy people are the most powerful, and in a capitalist society are
typically in control of the wealth of others through monopolies. Thus, in times
of desperate need, wealth is distributed evenly as it is the most the wealthy
can receive without completely ‘killing off’ the economy.
Currently in the UK, the richest 20% will
have on average £18,680 spare money each year to put into a savings account and
invest, whereas the poorest 20% will be on average £1910 in debt (The Guardian;
May 2013). As a consequence, the money that the richest receive is growing, and
the money that the poorest have to give servicing their debt is growing, thus
widening the economic gap. This has a great deal of consequences on other
important aspects of life in the UK.
Wealth greatly affects the health of the poor.
On average, people living in the poorest neighbourhoods will die seven years
earlier than those who live in the richest neighbourhoods (Marmot, 2010). One
of the causes of this would be that those in poorer neighbourhoods do more
unskilled, manual work, whereas in richer neighbourhoods, people tend to do
non-manual work. Countries with more income inequality suffer from more health
issues (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). These include: obesity, life expectancy
and infant mortality. The physical
health of people is not just affected, but the mental wellbeing of many also
follows the same correlation. Statistically, countries with higher income
inequality have a much worse index of health and social problems (Wilkinson and
Pickett, 2009). Yes, with income inequality arises many a social problem.
Common social issues being: underage pregnancies, substance abuse, lack of
social mobility, homicides and imprisonment. Where I live, I see these kinds of
things every day. I have neighbours that have been in prison numerous times,
and when I am out, it is hard not see drug dealers gallivanting around, feeding
people drugs as though they are sweets. Is that the kind of childhood you had
to deal with? This makes my chances of being able to socially mobilise become
significantly reduced. It makes me limited in the places I can go in my life,
all down to the background I come from. How exactly can we solve these issues?
How can we tighten the gap between the rich and the poor, thus reducing all
these health and social issues? Well, the first thing I would say is education.
In
general, changing a part of the education system impacts the wider society, as
the next generation changes in an economic or ideological sense.
Piketty also recognises that inequality in
general is affected by the education we receive. He said: “Over a long period
of time, the main force in favour of greater equality has been the diffusion of
knowledge and skills” (Piketty, 2014). This means that as time goes on,
inequality is increasing as knowledge is being diffused to the wealthy. As a
consequence of this, very little opportunities are offered to me as a student
from a socially-deprived background.
We should give children from socially
deprived areas good education, so they are able to go out in the world and
become more socially mobile. This gives them a good platform to start on, so
that they can climb the ladder out of social poverty, and have a sense of self
security. Education is the basis for every society, so changing it allows one
to flourish. However a huge problem that we face is that income inequality
heavily affects the education system, probably more than it affects the health
and social problems our country faces.
In our country, socio-economic background
highly dictates the places you go in the future, which is, we will probably all
agree, highly unjust.
What Is The Problem?
Why is it that kids from socially deprived
backgrounds, result in statistically being the worst performing in their exams?
Why is it that only 35.5% of students eligible for Pupil Premium actually
achieve 5 A*-C by year 11, as opposed to 62.8% of other children? (HM Treasury,
2008, p.26) Why is it that young people from low-income households are
approximately 3 times less like to gain a degree, compared to their more
affluent counterparts? (Bynner et al., 2002) This is huge problem that many
people are failing to recognise. Furthermore, it only makes this economic gap
larger. Students from deprived backgrounds earn less than their parents because
of a number of contributing factors. Whereas students from more affluent
backgrounds are given high standards of education and other things, leading
them to be earning more than their already highly earning parents. Some may
argue that the education system is not flawed, it is due to the fact that
University’s like Oxford and Cambridge fail to reach out to state secondary
schools, and in fact build a lot of relationships with alternative private
schools. But I would further argue that state secondary schools fail to teach
students to achieve the high standards that Oxford and Cambridge set. Students
in state schools are not able to reach these standards unlike their private
school peers, because of educational inequality. This is a huge problem in our
schools, and not the university admissions system in particular. It is a sad truth that many of us fail to
acknowledge. In our society, social mobilisation is only for the already mobile.
Young people from socially deprived backgrounds are consistently limited by the
schools they go to. Schools in poorer areas have low quality teaching, under-staffing
and under-budgeting. I am currently a victim of this.
In the school that I currently attend, 51% of
pupils achieving 5+ A*-C including English and Maths is the best results my
school has ever had (DfE: School League Tables, 2014), despite that, it is
still below the national average. More than half the pupils at my school come
from the poorest 30% in the UK (IDACA score, 2014). The amount of pupils at my
school eligible for Pupil Premium is well above average, and so is the number
of EAL (English as an additional language) students largely above average
(Ofsted report, 2013). In the most recent Ofsted report (December 3rd-4th
2013), my school was deemed “Requires Improvement” for all four categories that
are inspected. My school has recently come into budget problems, closing the
Sixth Form, making numerous redundancies, and axing subjects such as Drama,
Music, Citizenship and IT. As a consequence, classes are highly overpopulated,
and space is tight. Regardless, new students come to my school pretty much
every day, and many can’t speak English to a good standard. I have seen many of
these students are actually thrown into Set One classes like my own, making the
classes far more mixed ability.
In the school that I go to, I believe a very
careless attitude is given to the quality of education given. They do not give
a very holistic education to us students. I say this because the priority of my
school is to ensure that it gets as many EAL students as possible, thus
receiving further funding for EAL support. Their priority is to get the lower
achieving students as many GCSE’s as possible. This is something I can’t
exactly moan about. They have no choice, due to the fact that they have
unfilled spaces, and they can’t exactly refuse the spaces to these people. This
is the only way my school can actually carry on, especially since they have a
very limited budget. As a consequence, it takes a very utilitarian attitude
towards the school body, and will prioritise the majority, those being weaker,
and usually EAL students. A very ‘one size fits all’ attitude. I don’t want to
completely insult my school, because the things that my school has done for EAL
are amazing. There are many I have known from year 7 who could barely speak a
word of English, and now they are in the top sets getting the best grades in
the year. I can’t fault that, but I don’t belong within that. I am not part of
the schools priority, and the schools general ethos which is something I will
discuss later on.
For people like me, it limits what I can do.
I live in a socially deprived area of Birmingham, and as a consequence, I go to
a challenging school. Generally, the area that the school is in is reminiscent
of how good it is, and as a consequence, the area that you are from can
typically dictate your intellectual capabilities, and how far you will go in
life. For people like me, it means that I am a victim of a poor quality
education and much less support and attention, because high ability students
from socially deprived areas are quite commonly forgotten about. I am
consistently not challenged enough, because the needs of weaker students come
first. I am never really understood, and am often pushed down to the standards
of weaker students, because that’s what many teachers assume me to be, when in
fact, I deviate so much further away from that.
This starts when kids are really young, and
sadly gets exponentially worse as they get older. Studies that have assessed
child ability over time have showed that children who scored highly on tests
aged 22 months, but were from low socio-economic backgrounds, were eventually
overtaken by their more affluent peers (British Cohort Study, 1970). People
from lower socio-economic backgrounds are forgotten about, because many only
see potential in the wealthier children. This does not make the future look
very promising for lower class students, which is why their potential is
wasted. I don’t want to be that person that is forgotten about, and thrown
amongst other forgotten students. One of the reasons behind wealthier kids
gradually overtaking their peers is because of the many luxuries their parents
can provide them. Their parents can provide them with things like books, extra
tuition and visits to museums and theatres, which overall enhances their
education and thus their academic ability. People of low socio-economic
background are not really provided with an intellectually stimulating
environment, therefore the notion of being curious, or wanting to pursue
further academic attainment is not really present within these households. This
is generally because the level of education their parents have received is most
likely poor. This again relates to the idea that Piketty puts across about the
“diffusion of knowledge” (Piketty,2014), as if we live in an intellectually
stimulating environment, where academia and intelligence is around us all the
time, then we are far more likely to become that type of intelligent person.
Many people are surprised to know that both
of my parents left school without a single GCSE or without any qualifications
at all for that matter. My parents are just like many of the parents of my
peers at the school I go to, however I am relatively lucky compared to my
peers, because both of my parents are employed (it is worth noting that many
people who are employed are still in poverty), and consistently encourage me to
pursue a more academic future. Despite this, I still suffer just as greatly as
my peers, which says a lot about how the best education, support and attention
is only given to the wealthiest, and the large majority is forgotten about. In
fact, children of non-manual workers are 2 and half times more likely to go to
university than someone like me, a child of manual workers (Hirsch, 2007). Yet
there are many people like me who want so much out of life, and have the
potential to do so, yet we are still limited by the schools we go to.
That is probably one of the biggest issues I
have. The fact that many of the students
in the UK who are hungry for academic success, and have a thirst for knowledge
are just forgotten about, whereas wealthier students, who may not work as hard,
or may not want it as much are given a better quality of teaching and support! In
fact, there are studies that suggest that state school students that make it to
University actually do better. Of those students who achieved
ABB at A-level, some 69% of students from independent schools went on to gain
2:1 or above compared with about 77% of students educated at state schools
(BBC, 2014). This is clearly because state school students are just as smart, and
have just as much potential and because, like me, they have a good work ethic,
and a drive to do well. We have had to fight more for our education. Understandably,
there are many kids from lower classes who genuinely don’t care, so why should
they be given a good quality of education? Their attitude is down to who they
are influenced by, not our system of education. But even so! Despite the fact
that the quality of education is poorer in low socio-economic backgrounds in
general, it is even poorer for those from low-socio economic backgrounds who
actually care about their education. Ironically, more support and attention is
given to careless students, rather than bright academic students, especially in
schools like my own.
What Are The Causes of This?
There are many things that contribute to all
the inequality in the education system of the UK. The first cause I will talk
about is an extension of what I talked about in the previous section.
Careless Students
There are many comprehensive schools across
that UK that house some of the naughtiest kids. These types of kids are
disrespectful. They couldn’t care less about their education, or anyone else’s
for that matter. This is a huge problem, and not caused by our schools in
particular, but more by the students home environment. Nevertheless, schools
are expected to deal with it, and as a consequence are often blamed for the
problem. Schools already receive very little funding, despite the fact they
have to try and deal with these oblivious kids. This results in most of the
support and attention being given to the kids who misbehave, rather than the
kids that actually want to learn. I have been in many a lesson, where the whole
period has been devoted to aimless screaming at students to stop misbehaving,
thus not allowing the teacher to teach us what they need to, and help those who
deserve help.
Furthermore, the whole environment of the
classroom contributes to how much one can learn. Being at the school I go to,
you eventually have to learn to build resilience against noise, and be tolerant
of other people’s stupid behaviour, in order to actually get something done.
However, I still have difficulty trying to concentrate on what I am doing,
because there are so many children in one small classroom, causing a riot and
making a deafening sound. I quite frequently feel the urge to walk out most of
my lessons, because I can’t physically concentrate, but I resist.
As a consequence of this, support and
attention goes to careless students, telling them to be quiet etc. Thus, the
potential of hard working students from lower socio-economic backgrounds is
wasted. Simply because if the majority is weak, then the attention and support
will go to the weak, which many of the attendees of our lower class schools
are.
It is unfair, how the only way I can push
myself in school is to sit at the back of the classroom with a GCSE textbook,
and take my learning into my own hands. I shouldn’t have to do that. I’m sick
and tired of it, and you can only get so far with a textbook. I crave for
someone to be able to give me the help that I need, rather than me just sitting
at the back of the classroom, having to essentially teach myself.
Comprehensive vs. Private schools
Everybody knows that richer and wealthier
children are given the opportunity to go to private school. Hold on, one can
get a better education if their parents are rich? Well… yes, and that is the
sad reality. In no way does this allow social mobilisation, if the already
wealthy are being given better tools to become even wealthier. Some may argue
that many private schools are just like comprehensive schools, and they are not
really given that much of a better education at all. Well, I’m afraid the
statistics say differently. On average, nearly £4000 more is spent per pupil in
the private sector, than in the state sector (Est. DCSF 2009 & Independent
School Council). This inevitably means more opportunities, better resources and
better teachers.
Speaking of better teachers… Overall, 13% of
all teachers teach in an independent school, and out of that 13%, 54% of them
went to an Oxford or Cambridge college (Smithers and Tracey, 2003). This is
opposed to the fact that 83% of all teachers teach in a Grammar or
Comprehensive school, only 45% of all those went to Oxford or Cambridge. So
clearly, those in private schools are getting better, more intellectually
qualified teachers.
Another huge contributing factor that means
private education is better than comprehensive education is class size. Many
argue that having a larger class size is actually better, as it creates more of
a community within a classroom, and helps students in a social aspect. However,
this isn’t the case in a class in a socially deprived school. As already
mentioned, in lower class schools, behaviour is something that needs to be
dealt with a significant amount of the time. Therefore, having large classes
tends to make the classroom environment comparable with hell for those who
actually want to learn.
It is clear to see that going to a private
school gives you a significantly better education, which is what I would argue
to be extremely unjust. It means that our academic achievement will be dictated
by our parent’s wealth; a factor that we can’t control.
On the other hand, Grammar schools will open
students up to the idea of exclusivity, not by our parent’s wealth, but how
hard we work. This is thus a good motivation for students to work hard for
academic purposes, as it shows that academic achievement in itself does
actually mean something as opposed to our social class. This is something that
attracts me to the idea of going to a Grammar school.
Lack of Ethos or Value
This point is similar to the first one. Many
comprehensive schools fail to adopt any proper ethos, or try and teach certain
values. Many will brag on their websites about how they instil these certain
values in every aspect of the school and they have a certain ‘history’, but the
reality is that they don’t. In fact, these are the schools like my own, where
they don’t particularly care about the futures of the kids, just the futures of
the school. The types of schools that couldn’t care less if students are aware
of how much progress they need to make or have made, but when Ofsted come, it’s
a completely different story! That’s when we become experts in how much
progress our students make. Or maybe that’s when we start furiously writing levels
on people’s books and spoon-feeding them what to say when Ofsted come.
Without having any ethos of value, for many
students school becomes a boring and horrible place to be. Just a place where
you have to go and work hard all the time, and for many students, it is
meaningless and they don’t want to do it. Whereas, with some sort of ethos,
students then begin to understand why they are doing something and perhaps
start to enjoy it.
Another problem with schools in socially
deprived areas is that of the very little ethos they have, their consistent
reasoning behind doing hard work is “to get good grades” and “to get a job”. The
fact that going to school is reduced to just “getting a job” is quite sad
really, because it doesn’t encourage students to enjoy something, or develop a
passion for something, which makes them less inclined to do it all together.
Whereas in better schools in better areas, for them, employment isn’t a
priority, as it is certain they will be in a job of some sort. As a consequence
of this, students are given space to become interested, rather than just doing
it for the sake of doing it. This is why statistically, those who have
qualifications in higher levels of education such as A-Levels, Degrees and
maybe even a PHD are generally happier than others (Ipsos Mori, 2008). This is
because they go to work not to earn money, but to do something that they love,
and that they are passionate about.
This becomes a problem for more socially
deprived schools, because students feel pessimistic about the future, and feel
that job prospects are bleak. But the thing is, I do not want that. I am hungry
for success, and I aspire to go to the best colleges and universities. I don’t
want “employment” to be a factor that contributes to academic success. I want
to at least go to a Grammar sixth form, and attend an Oxbridge College as the
ultimate goal. I know where I want to go, and I want it so badly. It is no
exaggeration to say that one of my emotional purposes in life is for academic
success. But sadly, as already said, I am statistically not the person for
that, and from personal experience, I know I am being held back.
General Environment
People who live in socially deprived areas
are surrounded by so many negative aspects of society. Whereas, if you have
wealthy, successful parents, then it is far more likely you will be in an
environment with good people, who surround you with academia, and education,
because it is typically what their parents live and breathe. At the dinner
table, you will see successful people like lawyers and managing directors. This
kind of career and this certain level of academic success comes by influence,
because it is the type of thing that surrounds you every day. However when you
are from a working class background, it is highly unlikely that you will be
surrounded by this intellectual environment. In communities like where I live
in Stechford, I will see what one might describe as the complete opposite of
this every day. Being in a place like
this, there are two ways you can go:
a
- Observe these social issues day to day, and acknowledge how bad they are. This gives you first-hand experience with the issues, and only then can you truly understand how horrible they are. This way, you understand the realities of society. Furthermore, this encourages you socially mobilise, as it makes you ambitious, due to the fact that you already have very little, so it motivates you to want more.
Or
b
- This is the world you were born into and these are the laws you abide by. The idea of being in a gang and having social dominance is appealing to you, due to the fact that being academically dominant is out of the question, too difficult, and “uncool”. Committing crimes and being rebellious is something frowned upon by others, but admired by “us”, the people in your area and the people who are part of this ideology.
The sad part is that many people from lower
class areas opt for the latter. It is easy in the short term. It gets you a
reputation, and it gives you something to feel “proud” of, as if you have
“achieved” something. I have a neighbour who has been to a number of Pupil
Referral Units, and would never be able to attend mainstream school. Sadly, he
is the type of person to end up in prison and we all know it, however when
questioned on his actions, he doesn’t particularly care. The sad part is that
his parents don’t either, and there is nothing that angers me more than
careless parents. It builds up the stereotype that the parents of socially
deprived backgrounds are careless about their children, and sit around all day
encouraging them to do these bad things, with no moral compass. Wealthier
children are often taught earlier certain values, and as a consequence, they have
more of a sense of social construct, and how to behave. Furthermore, they are
less likely to succumb to these ideologies that the media espouses to young
people because they are given poor education that doesn’t inform them of the
real world. Fundamentally, people want attention and too many people will commit
crimes because it is admirable to ‘some’ people. This is the only and easiest
way that kids in socially deprived areas get ‘attention’. In fact, it is sad
that the media spurs this on, by featuring news stories about violent youth,
who have nothing going for them, whereas young people who are academically
successful and do so much good in these communities are hardly recognised.
How Can We Solve Educational Inequality?
In any great society, there will always be
unfairness, and we can never completely solve the growing problem of
educational inequality. However we can greatly reduce it in a number of ways.
More financial investment into Comprehensive
Schools
This seems like a generic way to fix a
problem, however I feel it is something that we really need. Investing more
money into poorer, comprehensive schools will boost social mobility, thus
boosting the economy.
Moreover, to get the best teachers into these
schools, we need to give teachers a good salary. Someone who has graduated from
Oxford or Cambridge is not going to settle for a teachers wage, thus making
these graduates not want to go into teaching. Raising the salary of teachers
will certainly make more academically-minded people feel more inclined to go
and teach in lower class areas.
Overcrowded classrooms, poor resources and
low quality of teaching are not what poor children deserve. We deserve exactly
what our wealthier peers get. Furthermore, I generally believe that privatising
something as basic as the education we get is wrong. It is creating monopolies
out of education, and that shouldn’t happen.
Investment of Time and Knowledge
As well as investing financially in these schools,
we should invest more of our time and knowledge into these schools as well,
especially with regards to employment.
In many comprehensive schools, we are
consistently told that we need to be able to get a job when we leave education,
however we are never given the skills to be able to get a job. Furthermore, we
are never told about respected qualifications or advice on the types of things
we should be doing. I have had this issue with my year 9 options, where my
school has offered a range of BTECs and other non-GCSE qualifications, but have
failed to tell us the actual value of these qualifications; it is sad to know
that many in my year have chosen terrible, disrespected subjects. As a
consequence of this poor guidance, it is likely that they will not receive the
highly prestigious jobs.
In fact, people who went to private school
account for only 7% of the population; however 75% of judges, 70% of finance
directors, 45% of top civil servants and 32% of MP’s went to private school
(Unleashing Aspiration Report, 2009). That small part of the population take up
most of the well respected and well paid careers. One of the reasons behind
this would be that higher class students are given the correct guidance on what
qualifications to take, in order to get them where they want to be. This is
different in many Comprehensive schools. Should my education actually limit
what I should do in later life?
Emphasis on Grammar Schools
Grammar schools are unlike independent
schools. I have already mentioned that Grammar schools open students up to
exclusivity not by the background we come from, but by how hard we work. Regardless
of how much you can pay a Grammar school, you can only get in if you can reach
a certain academic calibre, and that is what society should be about. Grammar
schools are the main engines of social mobility, because they stop people from
being trapped within a certain class. They offer the same learning environment
that private schools would offer, to those who can’t afford it, meaning that these
students can do just as well as those in private schools. A meritocratic
society should hugely advocate the use of Grammar schools. It is about academic
ability, over socio-economic background and it always should be.
Generally, we are too often judged by our
parent’s wealth, and that should not be the way it is. We shouldn’t let our
backgrounds define who we are, because that doesn’t make room for change.
Social mobilisation will boost the economy, and reduce income inequality. The
way to boost social mobilisation is through the way we distribute good quality
education.
Educational inequality is a huge issue that
many are ignoring, and an issue I know I have the potential to address, by
becoming involved in Social Policy and an advocate of equal education in later
life.
