Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP
Secretary of State for Education and Skills
26 July 2005
Education and Social Progress
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. Given that my theme is how education and social progress interact, it is very appropriate to be at ippr. Not only is ippr the home of the thinking that helped usher the Labour movement into a new phase – with the Commission on Social Justice – but your Director Nick Pearce, I know continues his passionate interest in the issues surrounding our education system.
Today is the 60th anniversary of the election of the 1945 Attlee Government. It was a government that responded to the post war desire for a fairer country, creating the foundations for a welfare state to underpin minimum conditions for all. It left a legacy of which we rightly continue to be proud.
The election of Labour in 1997 was I think about the same desire. How could we create a modern Britain where everyone has opportunity and where the state plays its proper role so that we achieve what John Smith used to call a fair society and a strong economy.
Education – in all its forms – is vital to that mission, and it’s a great honour for me to hold the position of Secretary of State at the Department for Education and Skills.
I am responsible for a system that is much, much improved from that which Labour inherited in 1997. Back then standards were low and ambition was scarce. Teacher shortages were rife and their pay reflected what the Thatcherite government really thought about them. School buildings were crumbling and the needed investment was just not going in.
Today, after eight years of Labour government, we have made enormous strides in creating what I called in a speech before the election a “genuinely comprehensive education system”; one that meets the needs of all children, whatever their backgrounds, their preferences or their ability. It’s taken hard work – from us and, most importantly, from the profession; its taken major investment and tough decisions; but it has been worth it.
So ‘Yes’ – we‘ve made real progress in two terms. And we should be very, very proud of it. But I am clear that we cannot stop here. Reform remains incomplete if we are to achieve the education system that our people deserve.
So in the afterglow of our third general election victory, there is no better time than now to ask searching questions about Labour’s next steps towards a socially just society, a society where background is no barrier to success and social mobility is a reality.
Over the next four or five years and beyond, we have to find the courage to keep on asking the difficult questions.
And we have to keep on building a consensus that embeds progressive change.
Why social mobility matters
Of course social mobility is not our only goal. We must balance it with the achievement of other vital objectives like:
· reducing poverty;
· ensuring equal rights for every citizen;
· improving the quality of life in our communities
And a socially mobile Britain is not just about fairness. It is also vital to our economic success in the modern world. We must be a society where we cultivate all talents, and where ability flows to the top irrespective of an individual’s background; otherwise we will pay a heavy economic price.
It is also vital if we are to create a cohesive society, rather than the exclusion that is the breeding ground for disengagement, social unrest and a breakdown in community cohesion.
But of course the case is not entirely an instrumental one. Social mobility matters to progressives because it underpins everything that we believe in. The ability for every child to dream, aspire and achieve, irrespective of who their family is, must be at the heart of our vision of the good society.
Let me be clear. When I talk about social mobility I do not just mean a system where a select few from poorer backgrounds are ‘rescued’ and make it to the top.
And I do not believe merely in some form of ‘starting gate’ equality of opportunity where we line our children up to face the world with just one chance.
Instead I mean a system with improved opportunities and outcomes for everyone. One which allows everyone to aspire and achieve their life’s goals. A society
where there is hope across people’s lives – ladders of opportunity giving first, second and third chances to everyone.
In short I mean a situation where people don’t have their life chances predominantly predetermined by their background, rather than their own ability and efforts.
So I am concerned when I read of how, on some measures, it appears that social mobility in the UK may have fallen through some of the post war decades.
For example, if you were born in the 1970s, then what your parents did had more of a bearing on your life chances than if you were born in the late 1950s.
This is a long-term challenge, not something which can be solved in a few years. And of course it will be decades until we know for sure what the outcomes are for the current generation of children.
But I am inspired by some of the progress that we have made since 1997.
Schools like Millfields Community School in Hackney, which I visited recently, where over 50% of pupils receive free school meals, and over 70% of pupils don’t speak English as their first language, should be an inspiration to us all. I see real improvements for these children. Last year almost 80% achieved the expected level of attainment in English at age 11.
But I also see lives which are shaped too much by wider social factors - where their parents come from; their ethnicity, income, gender or class.
Challenging this state of affairs is not easy. Many global trends in terms of skills, are pushing towards higher income inequality and we know that this is bound to have inter-generational effects. But we shouldn’t accept that there is an inevitable decline in social progress or that collectively, through government action, we can’t make a difference.
Other countries manage to do it. The Scandinavian experience in reducing the impact of social class on child attainment shows what is possible.
And in Britain, we must strive to do the same.
The role of education as a driver of social mobility
This is a tough challenge. We need a rounded approach and we must accept that factors outside government’s control play a role.
The shape of the labour market for instance will affect social mobility. Trends towards self-employment,andthe continued shift to a knowledge economy, will all have an impact.
Likewise civil society and the nature of family life are also crucial. Parents play a vital role in inspiring their children, nurturing their aspirations and creating the right learning environment for children to thrive in. We must erode a “not for my children “or “not for me” attitude to learning. We want all parents to encourage their child’s ambitions.
But government also has a clear responsibility to develop the context within which these aspirations can become a reality.
· We must continue to tackle any form of discrimination – in our education system, in our places of work, and in our communities.
· We have to continue our successful drive against poverty, which has seen the incomes of the worst off in society increase substantially and over 1 million children taken out of poverty.
· And we have to continue considering new and exciting initiatives that are helping us go further. Ideas like the Child Trust Fund – something I was proud to work on while at Treasury and which I know IPPR were closely involved in developing - will guarantee all 18 year-olds a nest egg to help them move into independent adulthood.
But of all the areas that government can influence it is education and learning, which has perhaps the most potential to open up opportunity.
Sure start centres, nurseries, schools, colleges and universities are the cradles of aspiration and achievement that embody the hopes we all have for our children.
That is why I see my department as the department for life chances. And that is why I see it as my job to boost social mobility.
We have already achieved a lot. Levels of educational performance and opportunity have increased significantly across the board.
But we have to consider how that expanded opportunity has benefited different categories of pupils – from different social backgrounds - as we set out on our next phase of reforms.
Take the top end of the education system – Higher Education. The tremendous expansion of HE in recent decades is good for the country and it has benefited many aspiring young people.
More people from lower social class backgrounds now go on to Higher Education. But it looks as though, in relative terms, that expansion has benefited those with a middle class background more than the rest.
I believe that the steps we are taking will help to tackle this. We are reforming 14-19 education to boost participation, we are bringing in a more progressive student funding system and we are raising expectations of those from lower income groups.
But these findings should put us on our guard. Particularly because it is attainment earlier in the education system which largely explains what happens at 18 and beyond.
We know that the quality of childcare and pre school education is crucial to getting on at primary school.
We know that how well someone does at 5 shapes how well they do at 11, which in turn is the best predictor of attainment at 16.
And of course performance at 16 and 18 opens the door to further and higher education.
This means that our ambition must be to reduce the negative impact that a disadvantaged social background may have on educational attainment at all stages, but particularly during the early years and school years. Get this right and the rest becomes much easier. Get this wrong and any talk of improved social justice is all too likely to be nothing more than warm words.
A step-change since 1997, but challenges remain
This is why we have put unprecedented resources and energy into education reform since 1997.
Our relentless focus on standards is having a marked impact, especially on schools in more deprived areas.
We said that we would not tolerate schools failing their pupils, or using intakes from challenging circumstances as an excuse for low ambition. Heads have risen to the challenge.
Here are some results you don’t hear too often. In 1997, there were 615 secondary schools where fewer than 25% of pupils achieved five or more good GCSEs. This was seen as a more or less unavoidable fact of life. Last year, that number had fallen to 186. By contrast, in 1997, there were only 83 secondary schools where 70% or more pupils achieved the same standard. Last year it was 413.
So never let it be said that things have not – or cannot – get better. They have and they can.
These success stories inspire optimism as we face up to the challenges still ahead. But we can’t stop until we are certain that everyone is getting a fair chance to progress.
We must find the courage to keep asking the difficult questions about aspects of our education system that in my mind remain unacceptable.
So I’m circulating with this speech some preliminary research by my department, that raises some important questions. It merits a close read.
The focus is on 11 year olds, because at this crucial age attainment is a strong predictor of later outcomes. We know for example that children who achieve the expected level at the end of primary school are nearly five times more likely to go on to get 5 good GCSEs than those who don’t.
Think about all the eleven year olds now just about to start secondary school. In 2012, they will be turning 18 and looking forward to the London Olympics as excited spectators, enthusiastic volunteers and some as expectant competitors.
But how have they done in school? How do they compare to 11 year olds in 1998? And if we look at eligibility for Free School Meals as an indicator of lower income, how are the children from these poorer families doing compared to those better off?
Let me draw out three conclusions from the analysis.
· First, schools in our most disadvantaged areas have improved faster than the national average.
For instance take the narrowing of the gap in performance in English and whether pupils are getting to the expected level – what educationalists call level 4.
What the figures show is that schools with more deprived children have improved the number getting to Level 4 or above by 18% points which outperforms an increase of 10% points in schools in the wealthiest areas.
· Second, even looking at average level of attainment including the top performers the picture is positive. Schools with the most deprived intakes achieved a 6% improvement between 1998 and 2004, as opposed to 4% in schools with the fewest Free School Meals pupils.
At secondary school level there is a similar story. The results in GCSEs are impressive in schools in Excellence in Cities areas and in those benefiting from the London Challenge. All schools in deprived areas should celebrate what they’re doing for their pupils.
· But the third conclusion is more challenging.
The new data gives us more detailed information about individual pupils and their attainment. For the first time, we can look more specifically at pupils who come from more deprived backgrounds as well at schools with a more deprived intake.
Again there is good news. We should celebrate the fact that more eleven year olds in all social groups are achieving level 4 in English and Maths.