Thread by @docrussjackson

#THREAD on right-wing culture war crank Katharine Birbalsingh's first speech since becoming the Government's Social Mobility Tsar - predictably delivered to the dodgy opaquely funded free-market lobbying group Policy Exchange, which pushes libertarian-right ideology.

She starts by downplaying the importance of inequality & social mobility, attempting to discredit the evidence which is crystal clear that rising inequality is a key contributing factor to the lack of social mobility: her first move is to separate inequality from social mobility.

Her heavily implied suggestion is that accidents of birth are really not that important, & thus structural issues should be pretty much disregarded, although she (reluctantly) accepts "Those born nearest the top have advantages over those born nearest the bottom" - no shit.

However, she quickly says that recognising how accidents of birth still profoundly shape life trajectories somehow equates to an attitude that says "no one has any agency" - NOBODY thinks this.

Very revealingly, she uses 'air quotes' around the word "disadvantaged". 😬

She accepts "structural issues DO shape opportunities" but "we should be considering a wider range of explanations, not just inequality alone".

Again, NOBODY looks at "just inequality", but to downplay it - as she relentlessly does in her rhetorical style - is disingenuous.

She says of course children are born into circumstances not of their choosing (der) but like someone encountering sociology for the very first time, says people "also retain agency". Honestly, she says it like this is some big insightful revelation, when it's completely obvious.

She moves on to what she euphemistically calls "diversity of talent" & launches into the importance of focusing much more on, er, FAMILIES (forget those pesky structural factors - it's all about the parents), & it's also about "CULTURE & VALUES" (I think we know which ones).😬

She brags about & gets a quick plug for her recent ITV prog about her controversial school.

Annoyingly, she keeps saying 'nuanced', despite being one of the least nuanced people in public life I'm aware of (she's a Spiked, GB "News", Breitbart, Telegraph & Spectator regular).

On the distribution of opportunities "Part of the problem may be to do with definitions & data". She falsely claims in relation to inequality that "much of the (simplistic) research drops into the model that separates the disadvantaged on one side, & everybody else on the other".

She claims the definitions of "disadvantage" (she does the annoying air quotes thing again) may differ depending on what index is used (you don't say) "so we should not treat the disadvantaged as all being the same". NOBODY DOES. It's almost Trumpian, with a sheen of articulacy.

She falsely claims that social mobility research (which is sophisticated, peer reviewed, nuanced & undertaken by experts who know what they're talking about, not ideologues) "reduces social mobility to a contest" between the advantaged & the disadvantaged. NO RESEARCH DOES THIS.

She falsely claims that this imaginary binary thinking & research "stops us thinking about social mobility FOR EVERYONE". "We need to recognise social mobility has many forms & one size does not fit all" - NO ONE has ever claimed 'one size fits all'.

Now we get to the heart of it: she says "Consider this: if a child of parents who were long-term unemployed gets a (presumably insecure low-paid) job in their local area - isn't that a success worth celebrating? Would we really want to say it doesn't count as 'mobility'?" 🤔

Her strategy is to redefine mobility as anything that isn't quite as shit as it was as a reason to celebrate global thrusting Britain's positive can-do attitude (while of course leaving alone all the structural disadvantages which are the main cause of a lack of social mobility).

She falsely claims that "much analysis of social mobility wouldn't even notice that it (her example of the child of the long-term unemployed getting a shit job) had happened", implying that only research focused on every single person in great detail can be considered legitimate.

She AGAIN falsely claims that for a generation there has been "too much focus on a one-size-fits-all model of social mobility, which sees HE as the key means of improving social opportunity." HE is certainly ONE OF the key routes to improving lifetime earnings & opportunities.

I agree with the sentiment of something she asks: 'what can we do for all the people who do not go through the HE route'?

She does not suggest ending tax avoidance, banning shit low-paid exploitative jobs or redistributing wealth.

She briefly mentions levelling up.

She says the Social Mobility Commission will be focusing on three interconnected themes:

1. Education: which includes early years (I know the evidence shows the first four years of life are absolutely crucial), schools, University & "other routes" eg FE/apprenticeships

BUT ESPECIALLY about "how we can help families & parents!"

2 Employment: she mysteriously fleetingly mentions "regulation" which feels like it's been shoe-horned in because if there's one thing Tories, Birbalsingh, the Policy Exchange & right-wing media all HATE, it's regulation

3 Enterprise & economy: she overemphasises the potential to sometimes consolidate but sometimes DISRUPT "traditional social mobility hierarchies" (wut?).

She says "We want to develop a strong evidence base of what works" - like researchers haven't been doing this for decades.

"In conclusion, we want to champion a fresh approach, which sees social mobility as the process of enabling everyone to find & apply their talents in ways that they enjoy & give them purpose... we are required to start thinking differently about social mobility".

Yawn.

Imho, that was entirely predictable, condescending, infantile, banal, pointless, & largely meaningless.

Her plan: reframe 'social mobility' & leave all the structural disadvantages in place.

#THREAD on the latest research on social mobility research:

https://twitter.com/docrussjackson/status/1532379003088162822?s=20&t=qa6z8PlzzvTkU-QY_YEVRQ

For context, here's a more detailed #THREAD about Katharine Birbalsingh:

https://twitter.com/docrussjackson/status/1447837174179811333?t=UPe36FT4QOmNhU1CY42IIA&s=19

I couldn't bear to stick around for Birbalsingh's Q&A at the Policy Exchange, but if you want to see the whole thing, & draw your own conclusions, fill your boots.

If I can engage my inner masochist, I'll try taking a look at the Q&A later.

OK, so I've endured the Q&A, in which Birbalsingh was ably assisted by the Deputy Chair of the Social Mobility Commission, Alun Francis. I'm not going to involve him in this #THREAD because - unlike with Birbalsingh - I know next to nothing about him.

I was previously unaware of the very telling fact that the Social Mobility Commission was originally established as the Child Poverty Commission by the Child Poverty Act 2010, then re-titled the Social Mobility & Child Poverty Commission following the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

The SMC is supposedly an "independent" statutory body, which assumed its current name following the Welfare Reform & Work Act 2016. A statutory body is set up by law (statute) that is authorised to implement certain legislation on behalf of the Government.

Imho, given that Birbalsigh is SMC Chair, the claim of 'independence' is as laughable as the claim that the @BBC Chair Richard Sharp - who "gave" the Tory Party 3400,000 & was appointed by the Tory Government - is in any way, shape or form an 'independent' appointment.

A Parliamentary publication about culture war crank Birbalsingh's appointment as Chair of the SMC makes very interesting reading: "Katharine Birbalsingh is a bold and interesting choice for Chair of the Social Mobility Commission." Not half!

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmse…

KB "has forthright views on education, which she has robustly defended against opposition from within the sector... as Chair of the SMC she will need to demonstrate her ability to listen to, & work collegiately with, colleagues & stakeholders with whom she will not always agree."

"We note her relatively narrow field of experience in secondary education. Her answers to our questions invariably returned to the importance of education, particularly the setting of high expectations & standards of behaviour, & parental responsibility."

What, no nationalism?

"Her vision for social mobility beyond the sphere of education was much less clear.. she will need further support from a wide range of fellow Commissioners with diverse backgrounds, knowledge & experience across all relevant areas of social policy & sectors of the economy." 😬

OK then, the Q&A.

The first question is about what works well in terms of addressing issues in education

Birbalsingh starts by emphasising how much she positively relishes the fact that if you Google “who is the strictest headmistress in the world’, her name comes up. 😬

She says the poor behaviour of some children can ruin their life chances & people at the Policy Exchange world “don’t realise how poor the behaviour can be” (although it won’t be as harmful & divisive as the behaviour of Policy Exchange & other free-market think tanks).

Birbalsingh says “when it comes to improving schools, the number one thing we need to do is get on top of the behaviour… I wear that badge with pride (being the strictest headmistress).”

I would suggest that 'child wellbeing', might actually be "the number one thing."

She starts rambling about agency again, which is Birbalsingh's go-to word because it disregards/downplays the myriad structural factors which inhibit social mobility, & places emphasis on the individual. Imho this is a manifestation of the neoliberal ideology infecting the world.

“Children have agency & adults also have agency & that people often nowadays, we speak... as if no one has any agency & if you’re born into privilege you will end up privileged & if you’re born in a disadvantaged group therefore, you’re going to be disadvantaged forever”.

She then starts going on about families again – “families who are very committed to education” – she talks about her school’s “Gold Parenting Sessions” where parents are invited to the school & some come, & some don’t. She doesn't offer any reasons why parents might not attend.

“The ones that come hear my advice on what they should be doing at home with their child… the parents who turn up are often the ones maximising their potential.” The implication is that the parents who for whatever reason don't follow her orders are letting their children down.

For all her talk about the importance of robust & nuanced evidence, she stresses that the positive results she sees from her actions regarding parents “is just anecdotal” & she’ll be gathering evidence to prove these points (that’s really not how evidence works).

Question two is from a social mobility adviser at PWC, who wants advice on “how to provide authentic support”. Birbalsingh says that as society looks down on the “left behind”, we need to encourage the idea of people “enjoying what they do” – “not everybody wants to be a lawyer”.

The last questions are too turgid to even go into (watch the video if you can be arsed), but entirely predictably, a very posh sounding person asks for Birbalsingh's advice on “how we challenge the victimhood narrative”.😬

Birbalsignh: “we’re all about agency which is the opposite of the victimhood mantra. So we want to change that narrative around victimhood & make it so that people understand & are inspired by those who buck the trend & through agency are able to change their stars.” Jesus wept.

And if you want some inspiration about what to do about the current shit-show, here's the words of Frederick Douglass, an inspirational man pupils are extremely unlikely to hear about in Birbalsingh's school, because she'd almost certainly dismiss it as 'woke victimhood'.