Should Accent or Postcode Define a Person's Prospects?
The debate over whether class should become a legally protected characteristic has sparked intense discussion, with letters to the Guardian highlighting the inherent challenges in such a move. Michael Chapman from Heathfield, East Sussex, argues that defining class for legislative purposes is a non-starter, as everyone holds a personalised view of what class means.
Chapman points out that variables like accent, postcode, housing tenure, income, and job type are often used to define class, but these can relate to oneself, one's parents, or even grandparents' occupations. He emphasises that this makes the concept so meaningless that selecting a single variable for legislation is impractical. Moreover, he contends that if a solicitor's son faces limited prospects due to his schooling and postcode, it raises moral concerns.
In his view, people are simply individuals with varying abilities, and a change in the law would not affect him personally. At over 80 years old, Chapman describes himself as classless and content to remain so, underscoring the subjective nature of class identity.
Historical Context of Comprehensive Education
Patrick Yarker from Dereham, Norfolk, adds to the conversation by correcting misconceptions about comprehensive education. He notes that the movement for "common" schools began before the Second World War, with about a hundred comprehensive schools established by the end of the 1950s. This number grew tenfold by the end of the 1960s, following the Labour government's 1965 request for local authorities to plan for comprehensive systems.
Yarker highlights that in areas retaining selective education, around four out of five students attended secondary modern schools, where they faced larger classes and less qualified staff compared to grammar schools. These students were generally denied opportunities to take O-level or A-level exams, limiting their access to university education. He argues that comprehensive schools, not grammar schools, have been the great enablers of opportunity, citing examples like the chancellor, home secretary, most cabinet members, and the new archbishop of Canterbury, all of whom attended comprehensive schools in their youth.
This historical perspective reinforces the idea that educational background, much like accent or postcode, should not dictate a person's prospects, advocating for a more equitable system that values individual abilities over arbitrary classifications.
