Education and Meritocracy: A Toxic Relationship
Our education system is one of wealth, exclusivity and inaccessibility. Private schools, grammar schools and selective comprehensives are where the meritocracy myth begins. In reality, these institutions are the cornerstone of inequality in our society; creating a system where the wealthy elite prosper and the less affluent are left in the cold.
UK Politics
By Sophie Savage
___________________________________________________________________
Meritocracy is a myth. A concept at odds with the reality of our society in England. The gap between the wealthy and the less well off is as much a staple of our culture as a cup of tea; it is not those with the most skill that rise to the top, but rather those with the means to acquire it. Our education system, with the endurance of private schools, grammar schools and selective comprehensives, is the institution which exemplifies this. Those who value the principles of meritocracy must take a stand against our education system if they ever want those values to truly manifest themselves into a reality.
Take a race. All runners begin at the same start point and have had the same time and resources to train. The first runner trains hard, amasses the most talent and wins. The second trains half as much, she is skilled but not exceptional — she comes second place. The third loses, being untrained and unskilled. In this situation it is indisputable that the person with the greatest merit achieved the most. This scenario should be a perfect representation of the country for anyone who believes the idea that we live in a meritocracy.
Yet is this really a model of England and its supposed meritocratic identity? It becomes clear that the answer to this question is no when we add more context to the scenario. The second sprinter may have only trained half as much because she could not have afforded to train as much as the first sprinter. Or, the third trainer may appear to be untrained, but was actually given inferior training compared to the first and second sprinters. This creates a much more realistic model of our society, one where upbringing, and, above all, wealth shape the opportunities and, most importantly, the merit of each individual.
This new model is reminiscent of our education system — a system where not only private schools, but where grammar schools and selective comprehensives, perpetuate the wealth gap and stagnate social mobility.
Fee-paying private schools remain to be an inequality of our education system. If a child aspires to reach top professions such as law, the military and medicine, which the privately educated dominate, then they can only hope that their parents have big enough pockets to afford the fees. Whilst private education does not ensure career success, or even good grades, it is indisputable that it does not offer some advantage when you look at statistics. Take for example the fact that the privately educated are two and a half times more likely to be admitted to a top university that their state school counterparts. It is just shy of impossible to say that private school does not offer a platform to those who attend it — offering them merit and opportunity that is only an idealistic dream for most under state education.
However, private schools — although an obvious and evident problem for anyone who wishes for equal opportunity between the wealthy and non-wealthy — are not the only barrier to meritocracy.
Grammar schools and selective comprehensives are just as guilty in maintaining the gap, perhaps even more so as their role in this is debated and less obvious — allowing for the government to falsely point to these schools and say that there are infrastructures to boost up children from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.
A frequently spoken myth is that grammar schools allow for children from non-wealthy backgrounds to access better education that they never would have had at their local comprehensive. This idea is mythic rather than grounded in reality as it ignores the actual statistics concerning who attends grammar schools. Those who claim free school meals make up only 3% of grammar school pupils, with the average in these selective areas being 18%. This translates to grammar schools having six times fewer pupils who claim free school meals than would be proportional for that area. With FSM claimer pupils being a widely used indicator of social mobility, it is obvious that grammar schools are a hindrance rather than a help. This is supported by Professor Stephen Gorard of Durham University, whilst speaking about selective schools, ‘More children lose out than gain, and the attainment gaps between highest and lowest and between richest and poorest are larger.’
Selective comprehensives only further exacerbate this trend and injustice against less wealthy children. The Sutton Trust reports how these schools are ‘highly socially selective, admitting much lower proportions of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds than the average, and even than the profile of children in their immediate locality.’.
Evidently, these systems of education lift up those with the wealth to access them. To judge the UK as a meritocracy is nothing more than an injustice to the children and their parents who do not have the means to access this education — as it assigns blame to them. It tells the story that have not rose to the most-esteemed professions, or earned the highest wage, or any other indicator of success in our society, are in such situations because they did not work hard enough to gain the skills necessary to achieve more. This gross assessment ignores the blatant barriers that our education system has created and preserved for years. Our only chance at ever reaching the mythical status of meritocracy is to break down these barriers and actually allow everyone, regardless of their means, to access high quality education. Until then, our system fails and meritocracy belongs in the pages of storybooks.
