Transcription
When I stood on Downing Street as Prime Minister for the first time this summer, my mission was to build a country that works for everyone. Today I want to talk a little more about what that means and set out my vision for a truly meritocratic Britain that puts the interests of ordinary, working-class people first.
We are facing a moment of great change as a nation. As we leave the European Union, we must define an ambitious new role for ourselves in the world. That involves asking ourselves what kind of country we want to be: a confident, global trading nation that still plays its full part on the world stage. But at the same time, I believe we have a precious opportunity to step back and ask some searching questions about what kind of country we want to be here at home too. Indeed, it is not just an opportunity, but a duty.
Because one thing is clear. When the British people voted in the referendum, they did not just choose to leave the European Union. They were also expressing a much deeper sense of frustration about aspects of life in Britain and the way that politics and politicians have failed to respond to concerns. Some voted for the first time in over 30 years. Some for the first time ever. And they were inspired to do so because they saw an opportunity to reject politics as usual and demand real, profound change. They were fed up with being ignored or told that their priorities were somehow invalid, based on ignorance and misunderstanding, or even that they were simply wrong to voice the concerns that they did. They took their chance to send a very clear message: they will not be ignored any longer.
They want to regain control of the things that matter in their lives. They want a government that listens and understands and is on their side. They want change. And this government will deliver it. Everything we do will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few. Not by those with the loudest voices, the greatest wealth or the most access to influence. The priorities of this government are those of ordinary, working-class people.
People whose lives can sometimes be a struggle, but who get on with things without complaint. They get on with their jobs – sometimes 2 or even 3 of them – because they have families to feed and support, bills to pay and because working for a fair reward is the right thing to do. They get on with their lives quietly, get on with their business, go out to work, raise families, help neighbours, and make their communities what they are. They do not ask for much, but they want to know that the people making the big decisions are on their side, working for them. They want to believe that everyone is playing by the same rules and that things are fair. And above all they want to believe that if they stick at it – do the right thing, work hard, pay their taxes – then tomorrow will be better than today and their children will have a fair chance in life, a chance to go as far as their talents will take them.
These are not unreasonable demands or frivolous wishes, but for many of these people life today does not seem fair. They are the people who made real sacrifices after the financial crash of 2008, even though they were in no way responsible. They wonder if anyone else – some of whom really did bear responsibility for the crash – did the same. More than anything else, they are worried – truly worried – that the changing world around them means that their children and grandchildren will not have the same opportunities that they have enjoyed in life. They deserve a better deal. And to give them that, we must take this opportunity to step back and shape the fundamental question: what kind of country – what kind of society – do we want to be?
I am clear about the answer. I want Britain to be a great meritocracy – a country where everyone has a fair chance to go as far as their talent and the hard work will allow. I want us to be a country where everyone plays by the same rules; where ordinary, working-class people have more control over their lives and the opportunity to share in the nation's prosperity. And I want Britain to be a place where advantage depends on merit and not privilege; where it is your talent and hard work that matter, not where you were born, who your parents are or what your accent sounds like.
Let us not underestimate what it will take to create this great meritocracy. It means facing some big challenges and dealing with some vested interests. Overcoming barriers that have been built up over many years. And it means not being afraid to think differently about what disadvantage means, who we want to help and how we can help them. Because wherever we have found simple ways of describing disadvantaged people and have been quick to form simple – and often rather blunt – solutions, in these modern times disadvantage is far more complex. It is often hidden and less specific. It is caused by factors more diffuse and harder to tackle than ever before. But it must be tackled if we are to give ordinary, working-class people the better deal they deserve.
And that means a significant shift in the way that government works in Britain too. Because government and politicians have for years spoken the language of social justice – where we help the poorest people – and social mobility – where we help the brightest among the poor. But to make Britain a great meritocracy, we must go beyond this agenda and deliver real social reform across all strata of society so that those who the system currently misses – those just above the threshold for help today, after those who are by no means rich or well-off – are given the help they need. And that means putting government firmly on the side of the poorest people in our society, important though that will remain, but also those who work in Britain hard but are just about managing. And that means helping to make their lives a little easier; giving them more control over the issues that matter most to them. This is the change we need. And that means changing some of the philosophy that underpins how government thinks and acts. And it means recalibrating how we approach policy development to ensure that everything we do as government helps to give a fair chance to those who are just getting by – while still helping those who are most disadvantaged. I do not claim that this change will be easy – change rarely is – but this is the change we need if we are to make Britain the great meritocracy I want it to be.
Over the coming weeks and months the government will set out an ambitious economic and social reform programme that will help us to deliver this change and build true meritocracy in our country. But there is no more important place to start than education. Because if the central concern of ordinary working-class people is that their children will not enjoy the same opportunities that they have had in life, we need to ensure that there is a good school place for every child, and that we provide an education that meets the individual needs and abilities of each pupil.
Schools that work for everyone start from a position of strength. This government has a proud record in school reform. We have opened up the system, delivering real diversity of governance. We have schools where teachers and headteachers are free to make the best decisions for them. And through successful policies such as a renewed focus on learning the basics of reading in primary schools, and initiatives to help young people pursue a strong academic core of subjects at secondary school, we are ensuring that every child has the opportunity to develop the foundational knowledge that underpins everything else. We have put control in the hands of parents and headteachers, and encouraged people from all walks of life with a passion for education to bring their best ideas and innovations to our school system. The academies and free schools movement, overseen by pioneers like Andrew Adonis and Michael Gove, has been a great success and begun to build an education system fit for the future.
As a result, there are more good or outstanding schools today than ever before in our country. There are now over 1.4 million pupils assessed in schools as good or outstanding compared to 2010. Our curriculum reform means that the proportion of pupils taking core academic subjects at GCSE is approaching four fifths. We are raising school standards to match the best international comparisons, with a record number of pupils securing a place at one of our world-class universities this summer. We can be proud of these achievements, but there remains a long way to go.
Because for many children, a good school is still out of reach. There are still 1.25 million pupils in primary and secondary schools in England that are rated by Ofsted as requiring improvement or inadequate. If schools across the North and the Midlands had the same average standards as those in the South, nearly 200,000 children would be attending good schools. Let us be honest about what these statistics mean. They mean that for too many children in Britain, the opportunity they have in life is determined by where they live or how much money their parents have. And it means that for many ordinary, working-class people, no matter how hard they work, how many hours they put in or how many sacrifices they make, they cannot be confident that their children will get the opportunities they deserve. Because when you are working 2 jobs and struggling to make ends meet, it is no good being told that you can choose a better school for your children if you move to a different area or pay to go private. These are not choices that you can make. And they are not choices that you should have to make.
So we need to move forward, and build on and extend our reforms so that we can truly say that there will be a good school place for every single child that meets their individual needs. But as we do so, we also need to change our philosophy and approach, because at the moment the school system works if you are well-off and can buy your way to the school you want, and provides extra help and support if you are from a disadvantaged family. If you are eligible for free school meals, and your parents earn less than £16,000 a year, then there is extra help on offer. This is good and right – and for as long as I am Prime Minister, free school meals will remain for the poorest children. But free school meals only measure a relatively small number of pupils, whose parents are on income-related benefits. If we are going to make the change we need and build great meritocracy in Britain, we need to broaden our view and do more for the hidden disadvantaged: the children whose parents are on a modest income, who do not qualify for these benefits but who are, nevertheless, still just about managing. If you earn £19, £20, £21,000 a year, you are not rich. You are not well-off. And you need to know that you have our support too.
At the moment there is no way of distinguishing between the school experience of children from these families and those from the richest 10%. Policy has been distorted by focusing only on those who receive free school meals, when the truth is that there are thousands of children from ordinary working-class families who are let down by the lack of good school places available. To put this right means finding a way to identify these children and measure attainment and progress within the school system. This work is underway and is fundamental to my vision for a school system that truly works for everyone. But we must also deliver a radical increase in the capacity of the school system so that these families can be sure that their children get good school places. And this is really important. Because I do not just want to see more school places but more good school places. And I do not just want to see more new schools, but more new good schools that in every way contribute to a diversity of governance that meets the individual needs and abilities of each child, wherever they are and wherever they live.
Every child should be given the opportunity to develop critical academic basics. And thanks to our reforms, that is increasingly the case. But people understand that every child is very different, with different talents, different interests and different dreams. To help them to fulfil their potential and achieve those dreams we need a school system with the capacity and ability to respond to what they need. The school capacity so we are greatly expanding the number of good school places available to all families – not just those who can afford an expensive house, pay for an expensive private school, or fund the extra tuition their children need to succeed – I want to encourage more people, schools and institutions with something to offer to come forward and help.
In the last 6 years, we have seen individuals and communities put enormous amounts of time and effort into creating good new schools. Some of our best state schools, charities, universities and private schools and businesses have stepped up to get involved. And increasingly, the best state schools are sponsoring the less good ones. This has been a revolution in our schools system. But with 1.25 million children still attending schools that are struggling, we need to do much more to increase the capacity of the system so that every child can get the education they deserve. So let us now build on the success of school reform, let us encourage others to play a part, and let us remove the barriers that face us so that we can do more. Let us sweep away those barriers and encourage more people to join us in the mission of delivering a good school place for every child. Let us build a truly dynamic school system where schools and institutions learn from each other, support each other and help each other. Let us deliver a diversity of good schools that ensures the individual talents and abilities of every child are catered for. This is my ambition. And there are 4 specific proposals I want to talk about today that I believe will help.
Universities. First, I want to build on the success we have already witnessed when we have had some major universities step in to help by sponsoring or supporting a local school. Universities have a huge amount to offer in England's schools. They have been part of the fabric of our education system since the 13th century and have had a profound impact on our schools across the generations. We have recently seen the University of Cambridge establish the Cambridge Primary School and the University of Birmingham open an impressive new secondary school for pupils and young sixth formers. The new specialist Sixth Form, King's College London Mathematics School, is already performing impressively and the University of Brighton is involved in sponsoring more than ten different primary and secondary schools. These are the sorts of innovations that I want to encourage. This type of active involvement in building the capacity of our school system in my country offers far more effective value than spending huge sums on grants and other financial support that address the symptoms but not the cause.
The right of a university to charge higher level tuition fees has always been dependent on their ability to meet specific access requirements. And this year, in meeting these requirements, they are expected to spend over £400 million on bursaries and other forms of financial support for students. However, the evidence is clear: it is attainment of pupils at school that is the over-riding factor in predicting university access. I am not saying that there is no place for financial bursaries. But overall, I think the balance has tipped too far. We need to go to the root of the problem, which is that not enough students from disadvantaged backgrounds and from ordinary families are fulfilling their potential with the grades to access the best universities. So I want our universities to do more to help us to improve the quality of schools so that more students from all backgrounds have the grades, the subjects, and the confidence, to progress to the best universities and to succeed in their exams in the first place. And so the government will reform university access requirements and say that universities must actively promote state school attainment – by sponsoring a state school or setting up a new free school. And over time, we will extend this by sponsoring or setting up more schools, so that in the future we see our universities sponsoring thriving chains of schools in every city and town in the country.
Faith Schools. Second, I want to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of more faith schools opening. Britain has a long history of faith schools providing excellent education. They already represent around a third of all mainstream schools in England. They are popular with parents and are significantly more likely than other schools to be rated by Ofsted as good or outstanding. I believe that we should confidently encourage them and the role that they play in a diverse school system. However, for Catholic schools in particular there are barriers in their way. When the number of free schools dedicated to faith is increased, they must limit the number of pupils they select on the basis of faith to 50%. The intention of this is to improve the diversity of school intake but in practice it has had little impact on many Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu schools because they do not tend to appeal to parents of other faiths. So despite the best intentions, the rule is failing in its objective to promote integration. But it is preventing new Catholic schools from opening, because the Catholic Church believes that it conflicts with its own rules for a Catholic bishop not to prioritise the admission of Catholic pupils. This is extremely frustrating because Catholic schools list are more ethnically diverse than other faith schools, are more likely to be located in disadvantaged communities, are more likely to be good or outstanding by Ofsted, and there is growing demand for them. So we will remove this 50% rule to allow for the growth in capacity that Catholic schools can offer. Instead we will consult on a new set of much more effective requirements to ensure that faith schools are inclusive and make sure that their pupils mix with children of other faiths and backgrounds.
Of course, there must be strict and proper rules in place to ensure that every new faith school operates in a way that supports British values. And we must explore new ways of using the school system to promote greater integration within our society more generally. We will encourage the coming together of mono-ethnic and mono-faith schools within multi-ethnic and multi-faith trusts. This will make it easier for children from different backgrounds in more divided communities to mix between schools, whilst respecting religious differences. We will explore ways in which schools can enter into twinning arrangements with other schools not of their faith, by sharing lessons or joint extra-curricular activities to bring young people from different schools together. We will consult on the idea of putting an independent member or governor of a different faith or no faith at all on the governing body of new faith schools. We will also explore new requirements for new faith schools to demonstrate that parents of other faiths will be happy to send children to the school through a proper consultation process. But fundamentally I believe it is wrong to deny families the opportunity to send their children to a school that reflects their religious values if that is what they choose. And it is right to encourage faith communities – particularly those with a proven track record of success, such as Catholics – to play their full part in building the capacity of our schools.
Independent Schools. Third, I want to encourage some of our largest independent schools to bring their knowledge, expertise and resources to bear to help the quality and capacity of schools for those who cannot afford to pay. This is entirely in keeping with the spirit that lies at the heart of many of these institutions. Most of the great public schools started out as a way in which poor boys could access professions. The nature of their intake has changed today – indeed these schools have become more and more divorced from normal life. Between 2010 and 2015 their fees rose 4 times faster than average earnings growth, whilst the percentage of their pupils who came from overseas rose by 33% since 2008. But I know that their commitment to giving back remains something that they do for the wider community. These are wonderful schools that have a great deal to offer and I certainly do not think that you solve the gap between the rich and the rest by abolishing or dismantling them. You do it by extending their reach and asking them to do more as a condition of their privileged position to help all children. Through their charitable status and private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we adjust the guidance for independent schools' charitable status to put a tougher test on the amount of public benefit required to maintain charitable status. It is important to state that this will be proportionate to the size and scale of the school in question. Not every school is an Eton or a Harrow. Many public schools are nowhere near that size. Smaller independent schools who do not have the capacity to take on full sponsorship will be asked to provide more limited help such as school governance support when appropriate. This could include supporting teaching in minority subjects such as maths or classics, which state schools often struggle to make viable. It could include ensuring their senior leaders become directors of multi-academy trusts, providing greater access to their facilities and offering sixth form scholarships to a proportion of pupils in Year 11 at each local school. But for those who have the capacity and ability, we will ask them to go further than simply sponsoring or setting up new government funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success. Instead, we will ask them to fund a number of places at their own school for those from modest backgrounds who cannot afford to pay the fees. We know that this can work. For example, Westminster School is a key partner in sponsoring Harris Westminster Sixth Form, where students at the free school share facilities and teaching expertise at Westminster School. In my constituency, Eton College sponsors Holyport College, offering Holyport pupils access to sports facilities and the opportunity to join in their educational activities. And before it became a state-funded academy, Belvedere School in Liverpool worked with the Sutton Trust to create an open access scheme where places were awarded on purely academic merit, and parents were then asked to pay on a sliding scale of fees designed somewhat according to their ability. I want all independent schools with the appropriate capacity and ability to take these sorts of steps. I want them to play a key role in creating more good school places for children from ordinary working families; because this government is about a Britain that works for everyone – not just a privileged few.
Selective Schools. There is one final area where we have put obstacles in the way of good new schools – obstacles that I believe we need to remove. The debate about selective schools has raged for years. But the only place it has led us is to a place where choice exists if you are rich – if you can afford to travel privately – but does not exist if you are not. We are effectively saying to the poor and some of the most disadvantaged children in our country that they cannot have the kind of education that their richer counterparts can enjoy. What is "fair" about that? Where is the meritocracy in a system that advantages the privileged few over the many? How can a meritocratic Britain allow this situation to persist? Politicians – many of them beneficiaries of the very type of education they are now seeking to deny to others – have for years put their own creed and ideology before the interests and concerns of ordinary people. Because we know that grammar schools are hugely popular with parents. We know that they are good for the pupils that attend them. In fact, the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils is reduced to virtually zero for children in selective schools. And we know that they want to expand. They provide an education that stretches the most academically able, regardless of background, and they deliver outstanding results. In fact, 99% of existing selective schools are rated as good or outstanding – and 80% outstanding, compared to only 20% of state schools generally. So we are not helping anyone – not least those who cannot move house or pay for private education – by telling parents who want selective education for their children that we will not allow them to have it. There is nothing meritocratic about standing in the way of giving our most academically gifted children the specialist and tailored support that can enable them to fulfil their potential. In true meritocracy, we should not apologise about stretching the most academically able to the highest standards of excellence. We already have selection to help achieve this in specialist subjects such as music and sport, giving exceptionally gifted young people access to people and training that can help them to become world-class. I think we should have more of this. But we must also take the same approach to supporting the most academically gifted too. Frankly, it is nonsensical to make it illegal to open good new schools. So I want to ease the restrictions that stop selective schools from expanding, and that deny parents the right to have a new selective school opened where they want one, and that stops existing non-selective schools from becoming selective in the right circumstances and where there is demand. In return, we will ensure that these schools contribute beneficially to raising outcomes for all pupils in every part of the system. In practice, this might mean taking a proportion of pupils from low-income families, so that selective education is not reserved for those with the means to move to a catchment area or pay for tuition to pass the test. They could, as a condition of opening a new selective school, be asked to set up a good, new non-selective school. Others might be asked to set up a primary feeder school in an area with a high density of low-income families to extend access. They might partner with a currently non-existent school within a multi-academy trust or sponsor a currently underperforming non-selective academy. But the principle is clear: selective schools have a role to play in helping to expand the capacity of our school system and they have the capacity to meet the individual needs of every child. And so the government will make £50 million available to support the expansion of good or outstanding existing grammar schools. Now I know that this will be a source of much debate in the consultation over the coming months, so I want to address very directly some of the key arguments made by those who oppose the expansion of grammar schools.
First, there are those who fear this leads to a return to a binary system, as we had in the past with secondary moderns. But this fear is unfounded: there will be no return to secondary moderns. As I have set out today, far from a binary system we are supporting the most diverse school system we have ever had in our country. From free schools sponsored by universities and independent schools, to faith schools and selective schools, the high diversity of school provision means that we will be able to properly meet the different needs of all pupils and give parents real control over the type of school they want for their children. We do not want to see new parts of the country where school choice is binary. So we will use the approvals process to prevent this from happening.
Second, there are those who argue that selective schools tend to recruit children from wealthier backgrounds. The problem here is not selective schools in themselves but the way that wealthy families can already dominate access to schools of their choice through house price selection. I want to stop that and new grammar rules can help. We will ask new grammars to show that they will attract pupils from diverse backgrounds, for example as I said, by taking a proportion of children from low-income families. Existing grammar schools are also expected to make more effort – by working with local primary schools to help children from more disadvantaged backgrounds to apply.
Third, there are those who argue that grammar schools do not actually select on ability because wealthy families can pay tutors to help children get through the tests. Perhaps this was the case in the past with the old 11 plus. But this need not be the case today. While there is no such thing as a test-proof tutor, many selective schools already employ smarter tests that assess the true potential of each child. So new grammars will be able to select in a way that is fair and meritocratic, not on the ability of parents to pay.
Fourth, there are those who worry about the cliff edge of selection at 11. Some fear it is too early, others fear it is too late. The truth is that there need not be a cliff edge at all. This is a return to old-fashioned thinking of the schools of the past. A modern, meritocratic education system needs to be more flexible and agile to respond to the needs of each child. So we will demand that new grammars make the most of their freedom to be more flexible in how students move between schools, encouraging this to happen at different ages such as 14 and 16 as well as 11. This means that children who are at a non-selective school sponsored by a grammar could join the grammar for specific subjects or specialisms where they are themselves outstanding – or they could move to the grammar full-time at a later age than 11, based on their performance at their current school.
And finally, people get lost in the argument about whether grammar schools in the 1950s and 60s improved social mobility or not. But I want to focus on the new grammar schools of the future: those that will be just one element of a truly diverse system that taken as a whole can offer every child the support they need to go as far as their talents will take them. And give every parent the right to access a good school place for their children. This is the true test of schools that work for everyone and the true test of a meritocratic society.
Great Meritocracy. There has been a lot of speculation in the last few weeks, but as you now know this is not a proposal to return to a binary model of grammar and moderns but to build on our increasingly diverse schools system. It is not a proposal to return to the 1950s but to look to the future, and that future I believe is an exciting one. It is a future in which every child should have access to a good school place. And a future in which Britain's education system shifts decisively to support ordinary working class families. These families are not asking for the world. They just want to know that their children and grandchildren will enjoy the opportunities they have enjoyed and be given the chance to go as far as their talents will take them. Unhindered by background or circumstance. And by the artificial barriers some want to put in their way. In a country that works for everyone it doesn't matter where you were born, or how much your parents earn. If you work hard and do the right thing, you will be able to go as far as you can. I want this country to be a great meritocracy. I want to see more houses built, better productivity so we can have more well-paid jobs, more economic growth not just in the south-east of England but across the whole country to help more people get on. But more than anything else, I want to see children from ordinary, working class families given the chances their richer contemporaries take for granted. That means we need more great schools. This is the plan to deliver them and to set Britain on the path to being the great meritocracy of the world.