Readers of JD Salinger’s ‘Catcher in the Rye’ may remember Holden Caulfield’s description of the American school he went to – "it was one of those schools that advertised in the back of the National Geographic showing some hot shot guy on a horse. I never saw anything like that at Pencey Prep."
I had an exchange scholarship year at a school a bit like that 30 miles east of Philadelphia. I had done my A levels in the UK and started at the Hill School, Pottstown, PA when I was still 17. I was lucky to go there, it broke the mould of England for me and focussed the direction my life was going to take thereafter.
Reading about the apparent reversal in UK social mobility, now apparently decreasing when it was increasing, made me think of that time and wonder what steps UK employers are taking to increase social mobility within their own organisations. Universities have to worry about social mobility, should not employers also demonstrate that they care about it and sharpen their descriptions of diversity in their Employer Brand management? Employers are pressed to reveal gender and ethnic figures but how about the percentage of people they take on by type of secondary school which is a broader challenge? Universities have to answer that question, why not employers? Employers of course are meritocracies and are blind to background in their search for talent but this conceals educational facts which will add important themes to any discussion on what UK education needs.
In America, private prep schools (that is secondary schools aiming to get students into US Colleges of their choice) are just a pin prick in US cultural life. Secondary education carries little of the baggage which all forms of UK secondary education has to cope with. Few Americans are remotely interested - in contrast to the furious debate it prompts in Britain where some leading Universities contain over 40% from fee paying schools, a category which only produces 8% of the nation’s school leavers yet 54% of FTSE 100 CEOs, 51% of top medics and 70% of High Court Judges (Source HM Government). Many of these universities want to change this yet they face two obstacles:
a) They must to keep their high standards competing as they do on in a global market, particularly for academic faculty members, and they cannot act primarily as social engineers. I can hear employers making the same point.
b) Some feel, Oxford and Cambridge for example, that they cannot attract the very brightest of the state sector given their elitist reputation. The Vice Chancellor of Oxford has stated that this is one of his top two issues (the other is attracting world class academics)
This is a double whammy and the British press regularly runs stories showing that alumni from fee paying schools continue to make up large percentages of top jobs given that there are fewer Grammar schools. Small wonder so many UK parents feel they have to take on the crippling burden of fee paid education which most parents in the rest of Europe are happy to escape. I wonder what the comparable figures for fee paid alumni percentages by job category are in the US and in other European countries? I do not think that Brits do fee paid education for social reasons, it is about getting qualifications and skills which will provide better chances of a high earnings and career advancement.
This situation is made worse in the UK by the influence of London as a place to work since many of the career options above are centred there. Geography can be an important merit and demerit in EB management. The daughter of neighbour is a trainee accountant in a global FMCG company’s London office. In September the employer is moving her to Preston as part of her development. Her first reaction was to leave and get herself into a City accountant practice but to her credit she is going to make the move. It may transform her.
What do I think UK employers should do to demonstrate their contribution to increasing social mobility? I have these suggestions:
1. Redefine ‘Diversity’. Britain has treated diversity as an American import where the topic has been informed by the various US ‘rights’ movements and so the focus has been on Gender, Minority Ethnics, Sexual orientation and the Disabled. This is why it ignores social class which is the biggest cause of exclusion in UK as numerous studies have concluded.
2. Recognise social mobility within their corporate and HR communications. It is not enough just to make the usual equal opportunity commitments none of which capture social mobility
3. Make sure everybody applies on line even for intern jobs. Be seen to make it a really level playing field
4. When an executive is asked to help potential candidates referred by clients, suppliers, friends or relations, ensure that all know the organisation’s stance. Nick Clegg benefitted from personal contact in getting an intern’s job and, while he should have said so, was right to highlight the inequalities of the system. A good message ruined by perceived hypocrisy.
5. Record the school categories for their graduates in the same way that Universities do. Indeed, why don’t University Careers services record graduate employer destinations by secondary school? They have the data and it would save employers the extra bureaucracy
6. Publicise the results. I think we will find that some employers have a very limited balance in secondary school profile and others will be very broad. There is an interesting subject for analysis here – does that balance correlate with corporate performance?
7. Ask recruiters to track secondary education profile on their short lists aspects.
8. Encourage relevant Government departments eg Fast Stream Recruitment to do the same.
9. Persuade the state education establishment to change its aspirations, standards and opportunities it offers all families including those buying private education. Where is the pitch to the latter group?
10. The big one, make private education unfashionable (in many countries the decision to go private is often for non academic reasons and can imply family challenges rather than ambition) and do so by changing state standards. Will David Cameron’s children, who have started in a state primary, continue in the state system? If so, will his government encourage more of his peer group to do the same? Consider the impact on the UK state system if the parental pressure of every FTSE 100 director, journalist, judge, and doctor was focused on it? How would existing school management react? It would redefine the definition of the ‘pushy mum’! A university class mate of mine headed a comprehensive school in North London for some years. He told me how much the school would have gained if he had been able to attract a broader profile from the fee paid day school competitors he faced.
Finally, it is tempting to consider employers who have already built a reputation for both outstanding performance and improving social mobility. Top of my list would be Tesco whose culture has long targeted bright and energetic people with nothing resembling a silver spoon in their mouths. It is an unstated but powerful aspect of their EB
Simon Barrow
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
