Improving educational achievement isn’t enough for social mobility – we need schools to do more

By Oli De Botton / @OliDeB

In the UK it is harder to climb the social ladder than in any other rich country, according to the OECD: a report published last week suggested that generational shifts in earnings, wages and education are rare in Britain. Researchers have put this down to poor early years provision, a lack of social mixing and general income inequality. But what is really striking is that findings also seem to suggest that improving standards in schools is not enough to increase social mobility. Five good GCSEs and As and Bs at A-level can do some, but not all, of the heavy-lifting.

Now the evidence is disputable. Other reports suggest the link between background and future earnings is weakening (notably Professor Paul Gregg recently cited in the excellent Open Left paper on inequality). However, as that paper highlights, your family status still too often determines your life outcomes. And whatever our views on the values behind social mobility, poorer children are less likely to have the capabilities they need to live the life of their choosing.

So what can we ask schools to do about this? Many would argue they have already done their bit. Standards have improved at all levels over the past 13 years, reversing stubborn historic trends. Others would say that schools are there to teach traditional subjects and provide pupils with qualifications. Anything else would be mission creep.

That may be true but teachers in tougher schools can see on a daily basis why more GCSEs and A-levels doesn’t always guarantee a socially mobile society. When I was head of a sixth form, I had at least three super bright students with A* credentials who were either rejected from top universities, or were intimidated by the prospect of high-flying careers. In other cases, pupils did not want to leave home while employers and Russell Group universities were looking for more. And feedback from rejection letters was always instructive. Students were “under-confident in interviews” or “seemed shy”. What they were all saying is that our students lacked the soft skills that would allow them to navigate challenging social situations. Looking interviewers in the eye, being widely read and having highly attuned social skills were attributes we hadn’t addressed well enough in our curriculum.

The good news is you can teach these skills. Lots of schools have supper clubs, partnerships with private schools and universities where topics are discussed and debated and other enrichment activities. Often these experiences can make the difference.

Some may argue that this is in some way disrespectful to pupils and their background – trying to instil ‘middle class mores’ in a pejorative way. That is debateable. But without a concentration on these soft skills, combined with a rigorous focus on standards, we will not provide students with the capacities they need to function at the very top of society.