There is a recently published text entitled Born to Rule, co-authored by British academics Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman, and published by Belknap Press. It examines the British elite, particularly its educated upper class, persons who attended the British public schools like Eton and Harrow and who went on to ‘Oxbridge’, – Oxford and Cambridge.
When the British government decided to abolish the Common Entrance Examination in Britain, it was claimed by many on the ideological left that it would somehow abolish or seriously alter the British class structure. No such thing has happened. With some modifications that have allowed for some degree of upward mobility, the British class system remains as intact as it has ever been. Social stratification is primarily a product of the economic system, more specifically the capitalist mode of production. It is not in any large measure a product of an education system. For one thing, the British never touched the top public schools like Eton, Harrow and Winchester and the British House of Lords still exists to this day. The British people will never abolish the monarchy or its aristocracy. There are still State and religious denomination schools in Britain that have some form of selection as a requirement for entry.
The text by Reeves and Friedman indicates how some aspects of British elitism have changed. It examines the case of Sir Peter Daniell who attended Eton. Although he was not considered a bright chap, he went on to one of the Oxford Colleges in 1927 “after his cousin had ‘a quiet word’ with the Colleges”. He subsequently took a job in his father’s financial firm and was later granted a knighthood becoming Sir Peter Daniell. His admission to both Eton and Oxbridge were aspects of what Malcolm Gladwell calls ‘legacy admissions’ – access to elite educational institutions based on who your father or mother or cousin was and what zip code you came from. This was the kind of crass elitism that the introduction of the 11-Plus in Barbados in 1959 fundamentally changed.
A picture on page 209 of my text, Harrison College: A Pictorial Memoir, (2019) shows that of the 21 boys in Form Prep 2 in 1955, only three were identifiably black. Those were Trevor King, Sterling Blades and Walwyn Blackman. The latter two are now deceased.
Errol Barrow’s January 1962 abolition of the fee-paying structure in the older grammar schools fundamentally negated many of the socio-economic biases in the Barbadian educational system. It was a strategic attempt to foster a more liberal meritocracy and, to some extent, it worked in terms of accelerating upward social mobility.
According to the Economist Magazine’s review of the text, Reeves and Fieldman used two measures to determine who constitutes the British elite. The first is what the reviewer terms “an extremely narrow measure” – those mentioned in Who’s Who, a guide to the powerful, first published in 1849. The second measure is more specific – the truly wealthy elite who the authors number at some 6 000 persons or a mere 0.01 per cent of the British population.
One of the interesting things about the British elite class is how its make-up has changed over the years. Using the Who’s Who measure, according to the authors, the British elite used to comprise a large number of clerics and military men. This is apparently no longer the case. It now includes lawyers, media personalities, and women who constitute one-third of those currently in that group. By the way, women were not included in Who’s Who in Britain until 1897.
The reviewer suggests that the British elites have changed. They are, according to the writer, more diverse and better educated. They “no longer slide into Oxbridge based on their connections”. The contemporary elites also have a wider range of interests no longer confined to golf, hunting and equestrian pursuits. They are, claims the writers, now more focused on the arts, the theatre, cinema and popular sports like tennis, soccer and cricket.
If Reeves and Friedman are right in their analysis, the changed nature of British elites indicates the truth of what formal schooling can and cannot do in the context of a capitalist democratic society that allows for choice. It can modify and mollify the rigid class structure by affording upward social mobility for an aspiring working class prepared to grab the opportunities provided by schooling. However, it cannot fundamentally alter the systemic socio-economic architecture which is essentially a product of the capitalist mode of production. That mode of production distributes its rewards and surpluses unevenly, thus creating class stratification which tends to replicate even as it modifies and mollifies hierarchical structures.
I once read a conservative journal which suggested that there may be an element of elitism that is inherent in material culture. That ostensibly conservative notion was a bit too rich for my liberal temperament. However – and here is where my liberalism shows – liberal democratic policies, particularly where they function within capitalist economic framework societies, must persistently seek to modify the grosser aspects of stratification, including those socio-economic biases that feed into formal schooling.
The historical record would suggest that social layering is not a product of the 11-Plus and its abolition will not in itself obviate social class distinctions. It didn’t do so in Britain and it won’t here in Barbados. There is a whole constellation of factors that account for the existence of social hierarchies. Historically, Barbados’ class structure was based on the British metropolitan paradigm which was class-ridden. This was compounded by our colonial obsession with race and complexion, which is a derivative of race. A caller to Down to Brass Tacks claims that the Common Entrance Examination is the source of classism in Barbados because people who attended certain schools in Barbados like to exercise what he calls “bragging rights”. The caller also claims that he has done “research” into the issue. The connection between social stratification and formal schooling has been widely studied by several educational sociologists on both the ideological right and the Left. It would be good to see the learned gentleman’s expert findings. Those in education should avoid abolishing an exam based on anybody’s prejudices and positive or negative misgivings about themselves. You first have to come up with a viable alternative that fosters greater social justice. Social justice does not mean an egalitarian society which, as Gladstone Holder used to point out, can only be created within the context of a tyranny; one that negates individual parental and student choice.
