I’ve only just read the full version of the Cabinet Office paper on social mobility, titled Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers (ODBB). It begins winningly for Longview readers with the first of its ‘five broad principles’: “We take a long-term view.” There is much of interest in the paper, both for its evidence and its proposals.
ODBB takes a lifecycle approach, with four stages: Foundation (ie early) years; School years; Transition years (16-24); and Adulthood (the rest). This is fair enough, given its primary focus on intergenerational mobility, even though the Adulthood stage is interpreted largely in terms of getting a proper foothold in the labour market, ie the initial period of adulthood. It is, nevertheless, welcome that assets and housing wealth are brought into the picture as key determinants of social mobility.
The emphasis on young people is also clear in the selection of leading indicators. Indicator 5, which deals with further education, is % achieving a Level 3 qualification at age 19 , in spite of the fact that the great bulk of FE students are mature people seeking to better themselves. The HE indicators are about progression of young people to HE, including the % of those who go to the 33% most selective HE institutions. I understand the superficial appeal of this, though find it hard to think how tightly this line can be drawn.
On indicators for the Adulthood stage, ODBB makes no proposals but says “we are committed to developing new measures of progress ” and refers to access to the professions, progression in the labour market and the availability of second chances to succeed. This is the crucial area – unless measures for this stage are properly developed, we will not know what the effectiveness is of all the other steps and measures. The lead departments here are DBIS and DWP, so this will be an area to watch very closely for developments. The birth cohort studies are specifically mentioned as a crucial source of long-term evidence, and welcome reference is made to the new 2012 birth cohort study and to the cohort research facility. The ESRC has just invited initial tenders for this CRF .
I’ll just pick one interesting nugget. Rates of absolute occupational social mobility are lower than the international average for men – and at the bottom of the international range for women. This links directly to work I’ve just been doing for the UK Commission on Employment and Skills, on gender and skills: women do better in initial education, participate more in training than men on average – and yet don’t move up the scale. This is a trend (or lack of one) which is definitely worth closer examination, over time.