Posh and posher

I was delighted, on Andrew Neil's programme last night on class, to hear the strains of Cowerd's The Stately homes of England (here, I think) at one point. It's a metaphor for the programme - it was all very enjoyable, and there is a proper point, but it was overly simplistic and the argument relied on sleight of hand.

Now, as I agreed with the answer - more selection, more rigour, now - I wondered why I found it so unsatisfying. And it is the shallowness of the debate, mirrored by the shallowness of the debate A and I then had. Having had time to think about it, the essential problem is that it conflated two quite different things. On the one hand, meritocracy and on the other homogeneity, and this permeated the whole debate. Too often, the problems of access to power (education, network etc) being in the hands of a tiny section of the population became mixed up with 'they all went to similar universities.' These are not necessarily linked. For example, were we to ensure that all the best people, regardless of background, went to Oxbridge, would we care that the cabinet was dominated by them? I suspect more people care about the private school thing; more people should care about the latter. But we should recognise the policy issues are distinct.

As an aside, there were also some unconsidered views on elitism (seen as bad, when it's probably good), and a mix up of causal factors: of course a lot of people who became politicians did politics at university. In fact, it's not even surprising they went to Oxford, which is where those kind of people go. Cambridge has a rubbish Prime Ministerial record.

Deserving of more scrutiny is the selection point. I have neither time and inclination to do so, but it is worth making a few points about this debate.

• Firstly, education is complex. There are obvious variations in focus, and importantly it is the main engine of social mobility. Unlike, say health, rank matters as much as attainment. So, within the country, being the longest lived person is less important than living another ten years; within education, coming first is more important than getting a doctorate. This is critical I think to policy development, and often ignored
• Thus, the debate about rigour often seems one sided. Take for example the English Bac debate. We can all agree that Gove should not have done this retrospectively, but it highlights in that wonderful phrase (used by the Economist last week) 'the soft bigotry of low expectations.' Banging on about the unfairness focusing on those 5 GCSEs misses the point. Life demands maths, English, analytical skill in the scientific and human spheres, and an appreciation of other cultures. By not teaching them, children don't just do badly in things that matter later, they don't even place. There is a debate to be had about whether Law is a harder A level than Maths (it isn't), but it misses most of the point.
• Linked to this is the issue of soft selection. Currently, there is extensive selection in the state system. More subtle than an entrance exam, thus only really discernable to the middle class, thus far far worse than hard selection, whereby everyone knows the rules. I find it astonishing that we decry it (absurdly) when Oxford practises an interview system, but allow 'comprehensives' to select on a variety of aptitudes for a proportion of pupils. Selection is good when it's simple and clear. 
• Finally, fairness. A's objection to selection is always that the 11+ is that it is unfair. Andrew Neil seems to agree. So it is - some people do badly out of it. But so is every other system. The test is not 'is it fair?' but is it fairer or better than the alternative. The evidence from social mobility I think is now pretty clear that comprehensive education has failed; attainment is probably better, but also weak. 

Could we design a better system than that of the 1950s? I suspect so, but it would still be highly selective. In an ideal world, a well-resourced streaming comprehensive would be best. And a lot could be done with precision of requirement and focus on objectives even now. However, resources are constrained, and it is easier and cheaper to group and teach accordingly, allowing cohesion and expectation to do the work of individual attention. Without vast resources, sound selection is the best way to do the most good.