Your editorial (The Guardian view on class in Britain: the government doesn’t want to talk about it, 14 September) purports to lay bare the problem with social mobility in the UK. But it simply reproduces an out-of-date narrative.
It accuses the Social Mobility Commission of obscuring the centrality of class. Yet our latest report is not an effort to “redefine” social mobility. In fact, occupational class is used in the main measure of socioeconomic background and as an outcome. But we also present evidence relating to other outcomes such as income, education, housing and wealth, because these also matter to people.
Further, and for the first time, we have presented breakdowns by ethnicity, gender, disability and geography. What emerges is a complex picture of opportunity. This might frustrate those looking for simple solutions, but it gives a more detailed understanding of how people from different backgrounds experience social mobility. It lays the essential groundwork for future policy recommendations.
Of course, data provides a picture based on averages. And within these averages are many examples of people bucking the trend, such as British people of Chinese and Indian background, who do extremely well on many outcomes even if their parents had low incomes or lower working-class jobs. We need to understand what helps them achieve this. It could shed light on how to improve social mobility for all.
There will always be work to do in this field, and differences of opinion about what the priorities should be. But the more fundamental point is this: no meaningful progress can be made unless we start with the evidence.
Alun Francis
Chair, Social Mobility Commission
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
