Social mobility map

[Robert Waller]

I wonder if anyone would like to draw any psephological correlations with the map in this article:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42112436


It caught my interest partly with the lead focus on Newark on Trent, a town I spent a lot of time in as a child, and where one of my sisters still lives.

I have always entertained the impression that despite its fine old buildings, Newark is, as one of our esteemed colleagues here would say, a dump.

However, I am not endorsing the interpretation in the article. If like me you struggled to find the authority at the very 'bottom' of the list, and wondered why they didn't 'go there', no. 324 out of 324 is ...

... West Somerset.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

The 'Social Mobility index' figures are bogus, baloney, and meaningless.

[mboy]

^ Explanation?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

It's based on adding together figures for how well children from deprived families do at school, with those for how well the local economy is doing in each council.

In order for it to be meaningful as a local measure of social mobility, you have to assume that people don't move for work.

[yellowperil]

Nov 28, 2017 11:17:13 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

The 'Social Mobility index' figures are bogus, baloney, and meaningless.

Yes I would like to see a reasoned  demolition of these figures rather than unspecific abuse. I must say I am dubious about the data not least because of the reliance here on ranking rather than real numbers, but I do need to know a lot more about the source before I could totally agree with David

Incidentally I used to quite like Newark back in the eighties when I was regularly travelling between Kent and Bradford and needed an overnight  stop off point between the two.  Preferred Newark to Grantham , my other choice, as I felt it was more of a real place. Anyway there was something sullying the reputation of Grantham. An earlier resident and it wasn't Newton.

[yellowperil]

Nov 28, 2017 11:35:32 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

It's based on adding together figures for how well children from deprived families do at school, with those for how well the local economy is doing in each council.

In order for it to be meaningful as a local measure of social mobility, you have to assume that people don't move for work.

Are you then happy with the figures separately, if we avoid merging them to make an index?

[carlton43]

Nov 28, 2017 11:59:38 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 28, 2017 11:17:13 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

The 'Social Mobility index' figures are bogus, baloney, and meaningless.

Yes I would like to see a reasoned  demolition of these figures rather than unspecific abuse. I must say I am dubious about the data not least because of the reliance here on ranking rather than real numbers, but I do need to know a lot more about the source before I could totally agree with David

Incidentally I used to quite like Newark back in the eighties when I was regularly travelling between Kent and Bradford and needed an overnight  stop off point between the two.  Preferred Newark to Grantham , my other choice, as I felt it was more of a real place. Anyway there was something sullying the reputation of Grantham. An earlier resident and it wasn't Newton.

I knew Newark well in the 80s and used it as a railhead for London. It was quiet and dull but had a good market, nice bookshop, tea/coffee shop and was being redeveloped along the river. The run down theatre had a good and varied range of attractions that drew me to showings of railway films, concert pianists, dance and plays.

You should have stopped off at Stamford which had good hotels and B&Bs and looks good to the eye.

[yellowperil]

Nov 28, 2017 11:01:42 GMT Robert Waller said:

I wonder if anyone would like to draw any psephological correlations with the map in this article:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42112436


It caught my interest partly with the lead focus on Newark on Trent, a town I spent a lot of time in as a child, and where one of my sisters still lives.

I have always entertained the impression that despite its fine old buildings, Newark is, as one of our esteemed colleagues here would say, a dump.

However, I am not endorsing the interpretation in the article. If like me you struggled to find the authority at the very 'bottom' of the list, and wondered why they didn't 'go there', no. 324 out of 324 is ...

... West Somerset.

er, because it's difficult to get to?

[yellowperil]

Nov 28, 2017 12:09:07 GMT carlton43 said:

Nov 28, 2017 11:59:38 GMT yellowperil said:

Yes I would like to see a reasoned  demolition of these figures rather than unspecific abuse. I must say I am dubious about the data not least because of the reliance here on ranking rather than real numbers, but I do need to know a lot more about the source before I could totally agree with David

Incidentally I used to quite like Newark back in the eighties when I was regularly travelling between Kent and Bradford and needed an overnight  stop off point between the two.  Preferred Newark to Grantham , my other choice, as I felt it was more of a real place. Anyway there was something sullying the reputation of Grantham. An earlier resident and it wasn't Newton.

I knew Newark well in the 80s and used it as a railhead for London. It was quiet and dull but had a good market, nice bookshop, tea/coffee shop and was being redeveloped along the river. The run down theatre had a good and varied range of attractions that drew me to showings of railway films, concert pianists, dance and plays.

You should have stopped off at Stamford which had good hotels and B&Bs and looks good to the eye.

Yes Stamford was the best option as a place,I agree -just a bit too far south to be ideal in terms of journey planning.

[carlton43]

Nov 28, 2017 12:12:35 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 28, 2017 12:09:07 GMT carlton43 said:

I knew Newark well in the 80s and used it as a railhead for London. It was quiet and dull but had a good market, nice bookshop, tea/coffee shop and was being redeveloped along the river. The run down theatre had a good and varied range of attractions that drew me to showings of railway films, concert pianists, dance and plays.

You should have stopped off at Stamford which had good hotels and B&Bs and looks good to the eye.

Yes Stamford was the best option as a place,I agree -just a bit too far south to be ideal in terms of journey planning.

Not that critical though as the north end was the 'easy end' and the south had London/M25/Thames Crossing/Heavy Traffic!

[mboy]

Nov 28, 2017 12:09:46 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 28, 2017 11:01:42 GMT Robert Waller said:

I wonder if anyone would like to draw any psephological correlations with the map in this article:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42112436


It caught my interest partly with the lead focus on Newark on Trent, a town I spent a lot of time in as a child, and where one of my sisters still lives.

I have always entertained the impression that despite its fine old buildings, Newark is, as one of our esteemed colleagues here would say, a dump.

However, I am not endorsing the interpretation in the article. If like me you struggled to find the authority at the very 'bottom' of the list, and wondered why they didn't 'go there', no. 324 out of 324 is ...

... West Somerset.

er, because it's difficult to get to?

The boundary of West Somerset is 9 miles from the M5, so I'm not convinced that's the major factor. I believe the district council is one of those that has historically been run by independents; perhaps that gives insight into the culture there?

[Pete Whitehead]

Nov 28, 2017 11:59:38 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 28, 2017 11:17:13 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

The 'Social Mobility index' figures are bogus, baloney, and meaningless.

Yes I would like to see a reasoned  demolition of these figures rather than unspecific abuse. I must say I am dubious about the data not least because of the reliance here on ranking rather than real numbers, but I do need to know a lot more about the source before I could totally agree with David

Incidentally I used to quite like Newark back in the eighties when I was regularly travelling between Kent and Bradford and needed an overnight  stop off point between the two.  Preferred Newark to Grantham , my other choice, as I felt it was more of a real place. Anyway there was something sullying the reputation of Grantham. An earlier resident and it wasn't Newton.

You must have been middle aged already by the 1980s - probably similar to the age I am now. A bit too old anyway to be engaging in the kind of juvenile stunts you describe here. I mean I'm hardly likely to avoid Newport, Shropshire just because Jeremy Corbyn comes from there (whereas I might have done just that in the 1980s, when I was a teennager)

[Rose Tinted Lane]

West Somerset Council was facing bankruptcy a few years ago. And in 2012 had a permanent staff of 82. So seems like a bit of an outlier.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-20731232

[East Anglian Lefty]

Nov 28, 2017 11:35:32 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

It's based on adding together figures for how well children from deprived families do at school, with those for how well the local economy is doing in each council.

In order for it to be meaningful as a local measure of social mobility, you have to assume that people don't move for work.

Is that how well children from deprived families do, or how well they do relative to children from better off families? Because the former would have some limited utility, but a quick glance at the map suggests a very good fit with the latter.

[yellowperil]

Nov 28, 2017 13:15:03 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Nov 28, 2017 11:59:38 GMT yellowperil said:

You must have been middle aged already by the 1980s - probably similar to the age I am now. A bit too old anyway to be engaging in the kind of juvenile stunts you describe here. I mean I'm hardly likely to avoid Newport, Shropshire just because Jeremy Corbyn comes from there (whereas I might have done just that in the 1980s, when I was a teennager)

And you,my friend , should be old enough to recognise a joke when you see one,even a bad joke. Actually I didn't like Grantham much, and could easily justify to myself reasons to avoid it.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

The 'Social Mobility Index' is calculated as the sum of four factors, described as Early Years, Schools, Youth, and Adulthood. Each of these factors is made up of multiple indicators: the SMC works out the average for all and then gives the local authority area a score based on the the amount it's better or worse than the average. (It's measured in terms of the standard deviation)

Early Years has two indicators: % of nursery providers rated 'outstanding' or 'good' by Ofsted, and % of children eligible for FSM achieving a 'good level of development' at the end of Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS).
Schools has four: % of children eligible for FSM who are attending a primary school rated 'outstanding' or 'good' by Ofsted; % of children eligible for FSM attending a secondary school rated 'outstanding' or 'good' by Ofsted; % of children eligible for FSM achieving at least the expected level in reading, writing and maths at the end of Key Stage 2; Average attainment 8 score per pupil for children eligible for FSM.
Youth has five: % of young people eligible for FSM that are in education, employment, or training (positive sustained destination) after completing KS4; Average points score per entry for young people eligible for FSM at age 15 taking A-level or equivalent qualifications; % of young people eligible for FSM at age 15 achieving 2 or more A-levels or equivalent qualifications by the age of 19; % of young people eligible for FSM at age 15 entering higher education by the age of 19; and % of young people eligible for FSM at age 15 entering higher education at a selective university (most selective third by UCAS tariff scores) by the age of 19.

So far so reasonable for measuring how well deprived young people being brought up in the local authority area are doing. But with the Adulthood measurement they go completely bonkers. The adulthood indicators are:

* Median weekly salary (£) of employees who live in the local area, all employees (full and part-time)
* Average house prices compared to median annual salary of employees who live in the local area (ratio)
* % of people that live in the local area who are in managerial and professional occupations (SOC 1 and 2)
* % of jobs that are paid less than the applicable Living Wage Foundation living wage
* % of families with children who own their home

Remember this index is just added to the first three and then linked as an indication of 'social mobility'. At no point do the SMC check whether the employees living in the local area actually grew up in the local area. The fact that people move round the country to find work is not taken account of. There is simply no connection between the 'Adulthood' measures and how well poor children in the local area have done in their early life. It's baloney.

[Foggy]

Nov 28, 2017 12:55:43 GMT mboy said:

Nov 28, 2017 12:09:46 GMT yellowperil said:

er, because it's difficult to get to?

The boundary of West Somerset is 9 miles from the M5, so I'm not convinced that's the major factor. I believe the district council is one of those that has historically been run by independents; perhaps that gives insight into the culture there?

The eastern boundary of West Somerset isn't too far from the M5, granted, but you have to go through B-roads and then carry on if you want to get to the main population centres of Minehead and Watchet. Exmoor and the inland settlements are even more remote. Plus, that's just for people with their own cars, of course. The public transport links between it and neighbouring authorities are abominable. 

The council has been broke for well over a decade and is constantly threatened by a mooted merger with Taunton Deane.

[mboy]

The A39 and A358 are both pretty major roads. Yes, Exmoor is remote, but hardly anyone lives there so that doesn't matter. Nearly everyone lives in towns along the A39. What's perhaps more relevant is that West Somerset is the lowest population "proper" council (i.e. not City of London or Scilly Isles). 1/3 of the population is retired. I suspect the real problem is that it's not a sustainable local govt unit and over generations that has shown and resulted in decline. Merger with another makes sense.

[Foggy]

Nov 28, 2017 21:33:51 GMT mboy said:

The A39 and A358 are both pretty major roads. Yes, Exmoor is remote, but hardly anyone lives there so that doesn't matter. Nearly everyone lives in towns along the A39. What's perhaps more relevant is that West Somerset is the lowest population "proper" council (i.e. not City of London or Scilly Isles). 1/3 of the population is retired. I suspect the real problem is that it's not a sustainable local govt unit and over generations that has shown and resulted in decline. Merger with another makes sense.

Yeah, there's your answer. It can't be viable that so much of the populace is economically inactive. 

[johnloony]

Nov 28, 2017 14:40:07 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

The 'Social Mobility Index' is calculated as the sum of four factors, described as Early Years, Schools, Youth, and Adulthood. Each of these factors is made up of multiple indicators: the SMC works out the average for all and then gives the local authority area a score based on the the amount it's better or worse than the average. (It's measured in terms of the standard deviation)

Early Years has two indicators: % of nursery providers rated 'outstanding' or 'good' by Ofsted, and % of children eligible for FSM achieving a 'good level of development' at the end of Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS).
Schools has four: % of children eligible for FSM who are attending a primary school rated 'outstanding' or 'good' by Ofsted; % of children eligible for FSM attending a secondary school rated 'outstanding' or 'good' by Ofsted; % of children eligible for FSM achieving at least the expected level in reading, writing and maths at the end of Key Stage 2; Average attainment 8 score per pupil for children eligible for FSM.
Youth has five: % of young people eligible for FSM that are in education, employment, or training (positive sustained destination) after completing KS4; Average points score per entry for young people eligible for FSM at age 15 taking A-level or equivalent qualifications; % of young people eligible for FSM at age 15 achieving 2 or more A-levels or equivalent qualifications by the age of 19; % of young people eligible for FSM at age 15 entering higher education by the age of 19; and % of young people eligible for FSM at age 15 entering higher education at a selective university (most selective third by UCAS tariff scores) by the age of 19.

So far so reasonable for measuring how well deprived young people being brought up in the local authority area are doing. But with the Adulthood measurement they go completely bonkers. The adulthood indicators are:

* Median weekly salary (£) of employees who live in the local area, all employees (full and part-time)
* Average house prices compared to median annual salary of employees who live in the local area (ratio)
* % of people that live in the local area who are in managerial and professional occupations (SOC 1 and 2)
* % of jobs that are paid less than the applicable Living Wage Foundation living wage
* % of families with children who own their home

Remember this index is just added to the first three and then linked as an indication of 'social mobility'. At no point do the SMC check whether the employees living in the local area actually grew up in the local area. The fact that people move round the country to find work is not taken account of. There is simply no connection between the 'Adulthood' measures and how well poor children in the local area have done in their early life. It's baloney.

I only noticed this subject on the news, and became aware of the report, because of your tweets about it. As you say, it is a load of interesting and useful statistics about how well people are doing (according to various criteria) but where on Earth do they get the idea from that it has anything to do with "mobility"? "Social mobility" presumably means "how easy is it for people to evolve from deprived socio-economic backgrounds as children to prosperous incomes as adults (or vice-versa)" but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of any such thing from the statistics you listed.