When Katherine Birbalsingh in the news, I get a strange sense of unease.
Her notoriety precedes her, and despite the fact that I have never attended one of her schools – or ever seen her – whenever she appears in the headlines, I feel like I’m about to be detained.
She exudes that unmistakable headmaster intensity that makes you sit up straight and take notes, but the message of her lessons, in my opinion, is sometimes off the target.
Ms Birbalsingh recently assumed a new role as the government’s new social mobility tsar, and in her first speech as Chairman of the Social Mobility Commission yesterday, she said that people from low-income families should take’smaller steps’ up the ladder, starting at the bottom and working their way up, rather than aiming for the top.
Clearly, nothing beats a ‘shoot lower’ message to motivate a crowd to achieve their objectives.
Her proposition infuriated many people, which was understandable.
After all, it’s not the fancy, wealthy, privileged individuals she’s trying to discourage, but working-class folks who want to achieve great things.
It sounded to me like she was telling individuals from low-income families to tone it down a little and accept a participation sticker rather than a gold star.
It was sad to hear the Government’s own tsar on social mobility say that we should aim for smaller steps, i.e. less mobility in the short term.
Despite how patronizing it sounded, I didn’t agree with what she said.
‘We want to get away from the idea that social mobility is solely about “long” upward mobility from the bottom to the top – the individual who is born into a family living in social housing and goes on to become a banker or CEO,’ she said.
‘We want to encourage a broader view of social mobility, for a larger spectrum of people who wish to improve their life, often in fewer increments,’ Ms Birbalsingh continued.
I think that people who desire to better their life should be recognized for all of their accomplishments, no matter how little, rather than just those that break through class barriers.
Setting a norm where folks from working-class backgrounds are only praised if they go into top universities or become CEOs of multinational corporations is unrealistic.
The goal of social mobility should not be to clear as many levels as possible in one leap, but to better the lives of all those involved.
Increasing chances for people who aspire to the greatest levels of education and career, regardless of their background, is critical.
However, telling them that taking lesser steps is a step in the wrong direction is not the way to go.
Once again, the onus is placed on individuals to curb their ambition rather than on university officials and top businesses to think outside the box and provide more possibilities and support to those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
However, I believe it is worthwhile to reconsider what we consider to be the ‘pinnacle’ of achievement and the top of the social ladder.
We appear to think of Oxford and Cambridge as the best indications of scholastic achievement and the most important indicators of social success in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps it’s because Oxbridge truly is the finest location to educate the country’s ‘best’ minds – or is it simply because society believes it is, making students less likely to turn down a spot at another university?
My skepticism radar goes into overdrive when someone from the Conservative Party praises a student from a council estate getting a place at Oxbridge.
Of course, such accomplishments should be celebrated, but when they come from the Conservatives, it seems to me that it only serves to reinforce their belief that hard work and talent can overcome social barriers, when in reality, it’s more likely that these few people have slipped through the cracks.
The exact net that was created to keep us isolated from the elite.
There are few things more elitist than referring to the Chairman of Social Mobility as a literal “tsar.”
If it weren’t for the fact that Ms Birbalsingh has said such controversial things about class in the past, I might be more inclined to Ms Birbalsingh’s views on social mobility.
One of her 12 golden rules for students was not to let them listen to grime or drill music because it would ruin their lives, she once said.
‘White middle-class people don’t realize that,’ she claims, because their children can come and go as they please. Whereas it could literally destroy your life if you’re a black kid in the inner city.’
While I agree that we should honor those who achieve great things, big or small, I can’t help but believe that Ms Birbalsingh’s message effectively encourages people to ‘aim lower’ in life.
I think a far more important message should be sent to universities and employers to aim higher in the level of opportunities that are available for people who they may previously have overlooked.