The Milburn Report; Social Mobility the Working Class and Access to The Professions

As New Labour’s own report into ‘social mobility’ unearths a disturbing picture of a more unequal society than at any time in the past 40 years, Steve Mowat argues it will take a far more radical approach to turn the tide than mere platitudes about aspiration

The Milburn Report; Social Mobility, the Working Class and Access to the Professions

“The Spirit of the Age is in favour of Equality…though practice denies it almost everywhere”

(Nehru 1961)

Little more than ten years after India gained independence from the British Empire Nehru, the celebrated Nationalist expressed frustration in the lack of progress toward social equality despite public displays of support from the legal and political order in India. The spirit of the age had failed to materialise as the hierarchical order of Indian social and family life continued to condemn generations of Indians to lower castes of Indian social hierarchy. The professions, law, medicine, politics, and journalism were nothing more than unattainable dreams of aspiration to most.

A striking comparison can be made from Indian example at the end of Empire to Britain in the modern era. In his book Friends in High Places. Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman pointed out that seven out of the nine top army Generals, two thirds of the directors of the Bank of England, 33 of 39 of Britain’s top Judges, 100 per cent of ambassadors to the 15 most important countries in the world, 78 of the 84 Lord Lieutenants to the Queen “…were educated at a handful of top private schools”.

“the world is run on knowing the right people, actually. I’m sorry, but it is…if you were an old Etonian, if you were a member of the aristocracy, you knew the right people. Well, it’s just the same now, really. It’s just a lot bigger”.

Twelve years after the election of the Labour Government and nine years after Paxman uttered these words Britain finds itself in an even worsened state regarding ‘social mobility’, than in 2000, and certainly compared to the heady days when most current members of the UK cabinet would have been at university.

A recent article in the Guardian backs this up and shows us that inequality remains as entrenched as ever; the paper reports 75% of judges are privately educated and just 4% of medical students come from the ‘bottom’ socio-economic groups. Recently Labour’s Alan Milburn was charged by the Government to Chair a committee on social mobility. The report itself finds that although “only 7% of the population attended private schools, 75% judges, 70% finance directors and one in every three MPs went to one”.

Milburn’s conclusions confirm the previously known obvious that career opportunity inn terms of entry into the professions and ‘top jobs’ remains largely a closed shop. Indeed, the reports conclusions go further. As the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions states;

”among nine out of twelve professions examined, particularly medicine and the law, the proportion of entrants coming from well off families has been increasing…Unpaid internships and work experience schemes, particularly in glamorous professions such as the media, tend to be monopolies of the well-connected.”

Milburn describes it as "the closed shop society", with a geographic bias towards London and the south-east. What solutions does the report offer? Not socialism, of course, or even greater economic equality. The Milburn answer, mainly, is to promote aspiration. “Society needn't be re-imagined”.

Many of the conclusions of the Milburn report skirt round the real relevant issue of working class professional and educational success, namely finance and the feasibility for working class people taking up further education without a system that provides a realistic living grant, and instead presupposes a burden of significant debt by the end of a university course. Instead, Milburn’s conclusions pampers to general notions of equality of opportunity, whilst in general changing offering very little real change.

Report suggestions include establishing a commission to advise Government, professions and public agencies, and to oversee progress made, a phenomenal waste of resources considering social trends of inequality and the root cause – poverty – is already widely known. A raising aspirations scheme is suggested as a means of providing information to young people and their parents. The effect of this would be minimal in the sense that it could not achieve anything more than University open days and schools career advice already achieves.

Given that University places are available at a price, a revamped information service would serve to reinforce for some that University and professional life is not a career choice for them, because of cost. Again the proposals for work tasters and soft skills development are going to be taken up by those who can afford to pursue the benefit from that, thus further creating an experience of educational apartheid between those on high or decent and low incomes.

Millburn’s focus on junior education reform might help create a managerialist illusion of equal opportunity. However as Sheridan and McCombes state in their book Imagine “equality of opportunity” does not necessarily indicate real and genuine equality.

“The national lottery offers equality of opportunity. Everyone has the same chance as everyone else of becoming a millionaire…there is more chance of being struck by lightning than of becoming a millionaire by buying a lottery ticket…as a matter of fact, society under New Labour does not even provide the same equal opportunity as the National Lottery. How can everyone have equal opportunity when some people inherit vast amounts of wealth on the day their born? How can their be equal opportunity when there are fee paying schools - open only to the children of wealthy parents – which virtually guarantee pupils entry to a top university? How can there be equal opportunity when students from working class families have to work long hours in bars or call centres to pay their way through university while trying to study for exams...?”

Eton college quadrangle

The principle of introducing social mobility bonds for young people is another conclusion of the Milburn report. This would be part funded by Government but also part private finance. With private finance a requirement not just initial investment but substantial profit back from the public purse would probably occur, as can been seen from the PFI farce in hospitals and school buildings. The scale or total cost of the scheme has not been fully outlined in the report.

With regard to schools the Milburn report suggests more largely irrelevant tinkering, such as overhauling the careers advice system, work experience and soft skills development. Many of these services are already in place. Expanding city academies and providing funding to deprived areas are other recommendations. More funding should be encouraged but benefits of this potential are lost if students further along cannot afford University places.

Perhaps the most bizarre suggestion is for an Army Cadet Force to operate from schools encouraging school children to work towards Army Officer training. Encouraging children to take up employment which involves putting their lives at risk and training them as weapons of War deserves utter contempt - but does fit with the general political direction of the Labour Government.

Conclusions for University are also nothing to really write home about, they encourage developing aspirations without re-imagining any transformation in the system. One recommendation is for Universities to offer modular degrees, which in any case are currently available through doing individual course credits. Credits can be combined to the value of a full degree and transferred between Universities at their discretion in the current system. Supporting Universities to take into account student social context in admissions is another recommendation. Again this is already partly in practice through the clearance system and would take little imagination to develop further. Another idea is fee free education for those studying in their area, which, in principle, should be supported but encouraged across the whole country. 3,000 apprentice scholarships to be awarded for apprentices to attend University are also recommended. Again this is a step in the right direction but does not go nearly far enough.

The majority of Milburn’s recommendations miss the point completely. Focus is on encouraging a fluffy cotton wool culture of encouraging ‘aspiration’. It by and large disregards the financial implications of further study which his generation benefited from a full student grant system.

In today’s day and age if a child from a working class background at school shows potential for a professional career it is a huge disincentive to capitalise on that potential because of the initial financial implications involved during years of undergraduate, and in many cases, post graduate study. This fundamental reality is glossed over in Millburn’s report in my opinion and an opportunity is missed for a radical social overhaul which would open up real access to professions and key jobs across society.

Consider a student today - who does not have access to a grant like Milburn’s generation had - and whose student loan is approximately £2000 plus £3000 tuition fees per academic year. Assume also that this student has to work part time to supplement their income and earns around £4900 doing part time shop or bar work, and an extra £1000 working over the summer. Total disposable income minus tuition fees is around £8000. This works out at around £180 per week term time income for an average student (assuming parents will provide necessities during University holidays). Bills on term time accommodation, utilities and transport at present prices comprises around 80% of a £180 income leaving 20% or £40 per week for food, clothing, books, travel and socialising. And of course, the fact that many working class students have to work simply to keep themselves at university places them at an academic disadvantage compared to their peers from wealthier middle-class families.

Alan Milburn’s report considers pre school life as a focus for access to University admission and access to the top professions. The report gives sweeping statements about inclusion, raising aspirations, social mobility etc but student finance is barely considered and at best given secondary consideration.

It is widely known that the average graduate pays £200,000 more in tax revenue across their working lives than those who do not go to University. On this basis there is no financial reason why the return of a full student grant, and state payment of tuition fees, should not be back on the mainstream political agenda. The re– introduction of a full grant system would not bankrupt the economy as those who benefit from the current disgraceful status quo might claim. It would cost a damn sight less than the trillion pound hand-out recently given to the banks to save capitalism. Indeed, it would be an investment in society which would pay for itself tenfold in the longer term.

Other measures should be considered and popularised by the socialist movement. These should include

The Milburn report misses the opportunity of a genuine policy overhaul that would give all young people an opportunity to fulfil their potential and provide them with an opportunity to enrich their own lives and contribute substantially to society.

Such a radical social policy overhaul is precisely what is needed in education. Unfortunately, it is completely missing from the thinking of all the mainstream political parties.

BETEILLE, ANDRE - The Reproduction of Inequality: Occupation, caste and family. Contributions to Indian sociology (n.s.) 25, 1 (1991) SAGE Publications New Delhi/Newbury Park London. 1991.

Tommy Sheridan and Alan McCombes - Imagine: A Socialist Vision for the 21 Century. Rebel Inc. 2000.