John Roberts: The politicians may tinker, but true social mobility will need a new look at school priorities

ONE of the main reasons Yorkshire regularly finishes at the bottom of education league tables is quite simply the number of schools in our region which are serving some of the poorest areas of the country.

Everyone in the education sector recognises the link between poverty and low attainment – this is a theme that unites the political divide.

When teaching unions complain about league tables, their argument is that it is unfair to use the same measure to compare two schools with vastly different catchment areas.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A school serving a leafy suburb with pupils backed by supportive and academically qualified parents is not comparable to an inner-city school where truancy is high, where children come from less stable families and with parents who fail to recognise or understand the importance of their child’s education.

Although politicians are more keen on league tables, they too recognise this issue.

The coalition has made improving social mobility, to ensure people reach their potential regardless of their upbringing, central to it is education reforms.

This message is at the core of three key policies: tuition fees, parent-led free schools and the new pupil premium.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

On the face of it, this focus should be welcome news for our region – one where poverty and poor performance in schools go hand-in-hand.

The problem, however, is the gap which exists between the political rhetoric and the reality of these policies.

Nowhere is this more gaping than on the issue of university tuition fees.

In August last year, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the coalition would seek to end an “educational apartheid” which sees the affluent classes dominate university places.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The injustice of this situation is captured in this often repeated statistic: Oxford and Cambridge take more students each year from just two schools – Eton and Westminster – than they do from across the poorest 80,000 young people in the country.

What is the Government doing to address this? Just two months after Mr Clegg’s talk of ending an apartheid, it became clear that fees would in fact be trebled to £9,000-a-year.

Ministers have attempted to package these reforms as “progressive” – because the poorest quarter of graduates will actually pay back less than under the current system.

However, increasing tuition fees is nothing to do with promoting social mobility and everything to do with bringing down the deficit.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Fees are rising because Government funding for universities is being so drastically cut.

As a result of this, teenagers studying for their GCSEs and A-levels in our schools today are being asked to contemplate debts of £30,000 and more to continue their education.

The quarter of graduates who will pay back less under the new system will do so because they will not go on to earn larger salaries.

The policy is not rewarding social mobility – quite the opposite. Those who the Government tell us will be better off are not necessarily young people from the poorest homes today, but those who will go on to earn the least after graduation.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Avoiding paying off large sums of their graduate debt will actually mean carrying it with them until they are 51 years old, by which time their own children could be planning to go to university.

Higher fees may be necessary to ensure large numbers of young people can receive a university education in the age of austerity, but the Government should not pretend this policy will be an engine of social mobility.

Even with fee waivers, bursaries and so called soft debt, this policy is designed to save the Government massive sums of money.

It is graduates who will be picking up the majority of this bill in the form of decades of debt, and it is the country’s poorest school students who are most likely to be put off from even applying.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Another key reform of this Government has been the creation of free schools – empowering local people to set up their own state-funded schools to meet the needs of their communities.

Education Secretary Michael Gove has claimed these schools “will give all children access to the kind of education only the rich can afford”.

A noble sentiment but a dubious claim. The performance of free schools remains to be seen. Mr Gove believes they will be able to replicate the academic success and ethos of a private school wherever they open.

He could point to this region as evidence of this. The first free school to open in Yorkshire was Batley Grammar which converted from the independent sector to deliver the same education free of charge.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In Bradford, with a commitment to develop character education, the new inner city King’s Science Academy also has the potential of fulfilling Mr Gove’s vision.

However, even if all of these schools are as successful, there still less than 30. This policy, seen as a key reform, will probably only ever affect a small fraction of children.

This might offer comfort to some parents but key Government reforms should be able to raise the life chances of all. Free schools will not lift Yorkshire off the bottom of the league tables – even if every single one of them is outstanding.

One area in which the Government has got its approach right in promoting social mobility is the creation of the pupil premium.Extra money going into schools for every one of the poorest children they take on. Schools have the discretion to spend it how they see fit. Critics may question whether the £430 per pupil being granted this year can make any real difference.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, the principle is a sound one. Schools teaching our poorest student face greater challenge and as such deserve greater support.

Social mobility will not be achieved not by tinkering with university admissions or changing the structures of schools, but by identifying the support every child needs from the outset of their education – and making sure there are the resources available for that individual to fulfil their potential.

That is what social mobility should be about.

John Roberts is the Yorkshire Post’s education correspondent.