Phillipson vows to tackle ‘thorny' challenge facing white working-class pupils
Speaking before A-level results day on Thursday, Ms Phillipson said her focus will be turning around the 'stark' attainment gap and outcomes between white working-class children and their peers.
The Government will set out its plans for the challenge in a schools white paper in the autumn, she said.
Fewer than a fifth (18.6%) of white British pupils eligible for free school meals achieved at least a grade 5 – which is considered a 'strong pass' – in their English and maths GCSEs in 2023/24, compared to 45.9% of all state school pupils in England, according to Department for Education (DfE) data.
The Education Secretary told the PA news agency: 'They're not well positioned to carry on with studies, to get an apprenticeship, to go on to university.
'That is why the schools white paper we will be publishing in the autumn will set out an ambitious vision for how we can tackle this generational challenge of what many young people experience.
'(It) is a national disgrace that so many young people are written off and don't get what they need to achieve and thrive.'
She added: 'Far too many young people, particularly white working-class British students, don't get the exam results that they need at GCSE or A-level to allow them to continue onto university.'
Students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will receive their A-level results on Thursday and they will decide whether to study in higher education, do an apprenticeship or go straight into work.
University sector leaders have suggested that cost-of-living pressures are affecting young people's choices around university – with more opting to stay living at home while doing their degree.
Jo Saxton, chief executive of Ucas, would like the Government to provide more bursaries and maintenance support for young people amid a rise in students who are choosing to stay living at home.
She said students were opting not to move away from home for their studies amid cost-of-living pressures, and some were choosing a university near home so they could keep an existing part-time job.
Dr Saxton told PA there has also been a rise in UK 19-year-old first-time applicants as more young people are wanting to work and 'raise some funds' for a year before they go to university due to pressures.
Ucas figures released last month revealed that the number of UK 19-year-olds who have applied to higher education by the June 30 deadline has increased by 1.4% compared to last year.
Addressing the cost-of-living pressures facing students, the Education Secretary said the Government recognises that there is 'still more to do' to tackle some of the disparities that young people experience.
She told PA: 'I do want all students to be able to get the full benefits of their time at university, to be able to take up internships, study trips (and) other work experience opportunities.
'I don't want students from less well-off backgrounds to be deterred from doing that because of having to take on more hours of paid work.'
When asked if the Government is considering bringing back maintenance grants in England to support poorer students facing cost pressures, Ms Phillipson said: 'We're looking at all of the options in terms of how we can support students to both get to university but also to thrive while they're at university.'
She added that universities have responsibilities 'to make sure students from less well-off backgrounds are given the support that they need' to get to university and to complete their studies.
'There's still a big challenge there in terms of some of the unacceptably high dropout rates that we see for some students,' the Education Secretary said.
Last year, the Government announced that undergraduate tuition fees in England, which have been frozen at £9,250 since 2017, will rise to £9,535 for the 2025-26 academic year.
It also announced that maintenance loans will increase in line with inflation in the 2025-26 academic year to help students with their living costs.
But university leaders have called for maintenance support to be adjusted in line with inflation in future years rather than as a one-off as part of the Government's reforms which will be set out in the autumn.
When asked about these calls, Ms Phillipson said: 'Both in terms of student finance and the financial sustainability of universities, I understand the arguments that universities make around certainty of funding and that's something we're considering as part of the post-16 white paper.'
Speaking to PA before the start of the new academic year, the Education Secretary said: 'My big priority for this year will be how we focus on the really stark picture that we see around attainment and outcomes for children from white working-class backgrounds in places like Sunderland.'
She added: 'The focus will be how we tackle some of those really thorny and generational challenges – like the gaps that we see around white working-class children and their attainment.
'That's why both the post-16 white paper and the schools white paper will have a focus on how we turn that around, and how we make sure that all children in our country can achieve and thrive.'
An independent inquiry into the educational outcomes of white working-class children was commissioned by Sir Hamid Patel, chief executive of the multi-academy trust Star Academies, in June.
Speaking before A-level results day, Ucas chief Dr Saxton told PA that an increase in UK 19-year-old first-time applicants was a 'new emerging trend'.
She said: 'I don't think it's the gap year in the sort of traditional Sloaney sense.
'(The) number one concern that we hear from students concerned about the cost of living and they want to work for a bit and raise some funds before they go to study.'
Dr Saxton added: 'Would I like to see the Government provide more bursaries and maintenance support? Yes, of course I would.'
The Ucas boss said 'commuter students' – those who decide not to move away for university – are using clearing to decline their place to study closer to home 'either because of caring responsibilities, or related to cost of living, or because it means they can keep a part-time job they already have'.
On the rise of UK 19-year-old applicants, Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK (UUK), said: 'There's clearly an affordability concern for applicants.'
She told PA: 'I'd be saying to Government this is another reason to get your skates on and address the maintenance and support issue.
'Because it might be students who are taking a bit of time out to earn a bit of money to help them as they enter university.
'But if it's because they are worried about the availability of finance through the maintenance loan – and it's the threshold not going up, as well as the total value of the maintenance loan not going up, that's been a problem – then I think Government should be paying a bit of attention to it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Evening Standard
23 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Sturgeon's ‘Stalinist' approach disastrous for SNP, claims Joanna Cherry
She added: 'The reason that I feel that her strategy failed and was so wrong was it was very narrow, and she repeatedly banged her head off the brick wall of the British Government's refusal to grant a section 30 order, rather than having a multi-faceted strategy to put pressure on them to do so, whilst also having a back-up plan if they said no.
Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Has Zelensky become a liability?
Is Volodymyr Zelensky becoming a liability for the West and for his own country? We are entitled at least to pose this question as we (I mean America and Europe) are funding this war. I ask because it is clear, and for years has been clear, that the conflict with Russia must end in a compromise, and the shape of that compromise should not be in doubt. Russia must be given a ladder to climb down and this must involve land. Ukraine must gain what from the start has been the great prize that Moscow has tried to deny it: an unshakeable place in the community of European democracies, with the military and economic guarantees from the West that make that place secure. It was Boris Johnson who first framed the idiotic boast that now threatens to block progress towards such a settlement. 'Not an inch!' he cried, to Ukrainian cheers, when he was prime minister. Perhaps he thought this was just the kind of thing you say for an easy headline and the whoops of the groundlings; but even he must have doubted that Russia could realistically be driven from everything it had gained, and Vladimir Putin be forced to grovel. Too many British minds, I think, have been prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin. Most wars, however, end in messy compromises, and that is how this one must end too. Let me start with the issue of land. It would be stupid for a generalist columnist like me to feign the knowledge that will be needed once negotiations over new borders begin, but I will volunteer this: Crimea (it can at least be argued) is not historically part of Ukraine and only got tacked onto Ukraine when the Soviet Union had both of them among its many countries and regions. I spent time in Ukraine last year, choosing to talk not to soldiers, generals or politicians, but to the under-25s. If you seek the point on the dial when many younger Ukrainians' refusal to contemplate ceding territory begins to waver, that place is Crimea. Despite official assurances from Ukraine that most citizens are against a land-for-peace deal, other polls (and my own conversations) suggest that people don't have principled objections to any ceding of land so much as serious doubts about whether Putin could ever be trusted to keep his word once a land-for-peace deal had been signed. That then – the security side of the agreement which I suggested at the beginning of this column – is absolutely the nub of the entire settlement. I'm in no doubt that if the Ukrainian people could be convinced the settlement would be permanent, and backed to the hilt by the West, they would vote tomorrow for a treaty that gave Russia permanent possession of some of what it has already taken. Let me anticipate at this point some readers' objections. Firstly this: 'Nothing agreed with Putin can he be relied upon to honour.' The trouble with this objection is that it is too strong. It means that even if he could be driven back to the old frontiers, and surrendered, he would try again later. I reply that he well might: that is why the security guarantees for Ukraine remain key. Secondly this: 'We must never reward Putin's aggression.' I'm afraid that, ever since wars began, aggression has often been rewarded. This one, in which incalculable numbers of lives on both sides have already been lost, and if it continues many more will be, must not be accorded the status of a moral lesson for the ages. The fact is that neither side seems capable of winning, so let's park the sermonising and look for the compromise in which so many wars – just wars as well as unjust ones – have always ended. And finally this: 'We owe it to the Ukrainian military dead, brave men and women whose lives were sacrificed for their country, not to settle for less than victory.' Well, if so, does Russia not owe it to the greater numbers of Russian military dead whose lives were sacrificed for their country too? What do we owe the British dead whose sacrifice in Afghanistan was also for a noble cause? This logic, applying as it must to both sides of any conflict, leads only to madness. None of us should be at all confident that Putin is ready to deal. I suspect otherwise. The greater likelihood is that in any negotiations he will fall back on Moscow's insistence that 'the root causes' of this conflict must be tackled. By this he means Ukraine's departure from the orbit of the Russian Federation. That is why security, not land, is what may prove the sticking point this time, because Ukraine's departure from Moscow's orbit must indeed be made secure. But if not this summer or this year, then next summer and next year, when the West's military support for Ukraine does not waver, and Moscow grows weary, this – security – must be at the heart of any negotiations. And those guarantees are up to us. Which brings me back to Zelensky. Who can blame him? Perhaps years of war, years of acute personal tension, years of sticking doggedly to your guns, years in the eye of the storm when your whole country's future rests on your shoulders, jam the flexibility of mind needed, not to fight but to deal. But there's a real danger now that Zelensky's apparent stubbornness over this 'not an inch' business may so infuriate a temperamental US President that American (and with it European) resolve begins to fray. Zelensky should not be digging in his heels on the question of land, and European nations, including our own, should not be encouraging him to. We probably can't save Ukraine without the Americans, and the Americans won't save Ukraine unless there's movement on conceding land. The Ukrainian President must get off his high horse, and Europe should stop indulging his intransigence. It's as simple as that.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Government is a living organism, not a machine
Martin Kettle is right to call for leaders who can operate the machinery of government (Opinion, 7 August). However, it should be made clear that the machinery of government – in which I work as a senior civil servant – is not a 'machine', as many current leaders assume. In his 2024 book On Leadership, Tony Blair says leaders often make the mistake of believing that the machinery of government is 'like an instrument in their hands' that they can learn how to use. It is not an instrument, he points out, but 'a living organism [with] a mind and a temperament'. This common misunderstanding of the nature of the system underpins the government's consistent inability to deliver. Anne Owers' independent prison capacity review is just the latest example. Machines can be mastered with manuals, precise plans and predictable cause-and-effect levers, but living organisms behave differently. As anyone who has raised a toddler or a teenager can attest: predictability and cause-and-effect do not apply. Linear approaches suitable for the 'machine', such as plans and targets, are ineffective, serving only to increase bureaucracy. Meanwhile, all remains quiet on the delivery front. Owers' review evidences this, describing the prisons-capacity response as bureaucratic and repetitive, with too much discussion and too little action. Treating the machinery of government like a complex organism, rather than a machine, is the only way it will be effectively deployed. The UK government's own guidance on 'systems thinking for civil servants', as well as research by the Institute for Government, acknowledges this, with the latter noting that the machinery of government cannot be 'controlled through plans and 'levers''. Yet time and again, leaders fall back on the same familiar levers, expecting different results. They deploy tools suitable for the 'machine', including endless plans and committees. Bureaucracy begets bureaucracy, while delivery is missing in action. Breaking this cycle will remain unsuccessful for as long as leaders continue to treat government as a 'machine'.Name and address supplied Martin Kettle correctly identifies the stranglehold that Treasury orthodoxy has on government, but does not go far enough in identifying the source. Supply-side theory claims that growth comes when entrepreneurs are given incentives such as tax breaks or subsidies. Private businesses will employ people and the wealth they create, the taxes they pay, will allow government to improve public services. Forty years of failure has not dented faith in this flawed doctrine. Perhaps because those who administer the policies do not suffer the effects. Instead of giving money to rich businessmen, much of which finds its way into tax havens, why not try using it productively through existing channels? Public spending is not a dirty word. Creating a safe, healthy and prosperous society is the essence of government. Local authorities, especially in poor areas, are desperate for funds to keep their communities in a half-decent state: give them money to rebuild and repair, perhaps with encouragement to source locally. Bring in a local income tax instead of rates. Reverse the increase in employer's national insurance contributions, which is a tax on jobs. When demand increases, supply will follow. In this way the economy will grow organically, sustainably and all around the DaviesNewton-le-Willows, Merseyside 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.
