Skip to main content
Category

Education

Freddie Kellett: University free speech legislation is neither wanted nor needed

By Centre Write, Education

In the Queen’s Speech, the Conservative Party revealed plans for a more robust series of protections for free speech at British universities. However, this legislation, which aims to prevent no-platforming, is misguided. Though there is evidence that conservative views are underrepresented at British universities, which may have negative free speech consequences, the new plans do nothing to tackle this problem and the focus on the non-issue of no-platforming amounts to meaningless political posturing. 

The Government contends that free speech is a serious problem on university campuses across the country. The new legislation focuses on so-called no-platforming, where a speaker is not given access to a public debate or forum, generally due to the controversial nature of their views. Indeed, Amber Rudd was recently no-platformed from an Oxford University debate for her hand in the Windrush scandal, which saw the deportation of legally resident citizens. The Government’s assertion is that the practice of no-platforming is a frequent occurrence, stymieing debate and frustrating intellectual rigour as a result. 

However, despite the supposed importance of no-platforming as a free speech issue, there is little evidence to support the existence of widespread no-platforming. This must bring into question the necessity of this legislation. In fact, there is a substantial body of research which shows a significant issue in the balance of political views. A 2020 report found that just six university events in almost 10,000 (0.06%) involving an external speaker were cancelled in 2019-20. Of these six, four were cancelled due to not following administrative processes, one involved a pyramid scheme fraudster, and the other was moved to a larger venue. In addition to this, the Office for Students, which regulates higher education in England, collects data on external speakers — its official figures show that fewer than 0.1% of requests for events or external speakers were blocked in 2017-18 (data is not yet available beyond this).

As such, no-platforming appears to be rare and hardly worthy of a mention in the Queen’s Speech. Indeed, this policy directed at no-platforming is not based on a clear need, but perhaps some political posturing about a matter of greater principle. Arguably, it conflates the issues of free speech with fair representation of views. 

Certainly, it is often touted by the right that universities are too left-wing, with substantial evidence supporting those on the political left’s over-representation when compared to the rest of the population. Only 8% of the national university population identifies as conservative compared to the national average of around 40%. Indeed research from the Policy Exchange finds that academics with more conservative viewpoints feel constrained in expressing their views, with examples cited including trans rights and Brexit. This is a significant finding, which must have implications for the direction of academic research and the nature of scholarly debate.

While the under-representation of conservative views at universities may not directly obstruct debate, as in the fallacy of de-platforming of speakers, it may impede the trajectory of academic research and these issues within universities require a more complex policy response. The same report from Policy Exchange gave a series of detailed policy recommendations to overcome the issue of poor representation of conservative ideologies among academics. Two of the most pertinent ones discussed recommending expanding the National Student Survey to include questions designed to elicit students’ experience of political discrimination and of a climate of free expression in the classroom, and the adoption of a version of the ‘Chatham House Rule’ as an institutional code of practice for teaching and research seminars. These proposals are tangible suggestions that would go a long way to tackling this genuine free speech issue within our universities. 

It has been demonstrated that there is limited evidence to support the need for the free speech legislation the Government plans to introduce. Instead, it appears that free speech is being protected through crude means which will not help with the identified problem of academic representation of views. Perhaps in an attempt to appeal to older voters and contribute to the debate on free speech legislation, legislators have disappointingly grasped at the low hanging fruit of no-platforming as opposed to considering serious and needed policy interventions. Recommendations exist to increase the diversity of political views held by academics that are simple to introduce, require little public funding, and would find support across a wide variety of voters and the Government must consider them in order to deal with the free speech issue in universities properly. 

Freddie is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Sarah Cossom]

Jan Ole Faust: Where do Scotland’s main parties stand on education?

By Centre Write, Education

Education in Scotland has been wholly devolved since 1999, and the main party in favour of complete separation from the United Kingdom, the SNP, has been in power since 2007. Statistical metrics of school pupils’ performance, non-partisan supranational studies, and further as well as higher education attainment gaps illustrate decline or stagnation. Relative to a wide variety of European nations and the rest of the United Kingdom, the SNP has performed poorly. 

Numeracy and literacy standards have fallen in Scotland, according to several reports and studies. The seminal PISA study, occurring every three years, notes a drop in numeracy that leaves it worse than the rest of the United Kingdom, and a decline in literacy to being below European standards, as well as both Northern Ireland and England. The SNP has failed to significantly close the attainment gap between richer and poorer students: the number of those in the lowest-earning quintile of families moving on to higher education has only increased by 6% over the last six years. 

Excluding the handing out of predicted grades in the 2019/2020 academic year, however, that number would be as low as 4%. The difference between the total number of school leavers from the most and least deprived income-quintiles going on to higher education has barely decreased by over 2%, down to 35.77%. Keir Bloomer, former Chair of the Commission on School Reform and prominent contributor to the Curriculum for Excellence’s formation himself has penned pieces criticising the SNP administration’s handling of education. 

Free school meals are now provided to all primary school-aged children; which was not done in over a decade leading up to the pandemic. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it was also only made possible by a Covid splurge of extra funding, and yet the SNP intends to extend the spending increase alongside other measures until 2022-2023, and beyond. When the pandemic-induced funding ceases, that money will have to come from core budgets. Unless the Scottish Government increases taxes, real terms spending decreases on either other public services or schools will follow. 

Starting at the roots, 700 school buildings have not had an inspection in over ten years. The Conservatives, meanwhile, plan to invest in school buildings to the point where none of them are rated “poor” or “bad”. The Conservatives also adopted a plan to create a new body functioning as an independent school and education inspector. Of the two measures to make schools more accountable, the former is clear and trackable, whereas the latter mimics successful school inspection bodies that exist in many countries and watchdogs that exist in Britain. 

The idea to invest £120 million in a pupil catch-up programme to support those who have fallen behind could assuage worried parent’s fears. Directly addressing the attainment gap, a national tutoring programme would be initiated under the Conservatives, also aimed at specifically improving STEM results, an area Scotland has foundered in. These policies were clearly drafted to address specific shortcomings and increase accountability without any wide overhaul, making the proposals credible; if argued for and implemented as described, they could serve to benefit Scotland’s schools. 

While the decline in teacher numbers has been addressed somewhat by the SNP, the opposition party’s campaign material and appearances ought to emphasise that their plans are realistic and ambitious. The Scottish Conservatives aim to hire 3000 more teachers for £550 million. Beyond the numbers, there is further ground one could campaign on: career switchers are to be encouraged, with special financial support in subjects where there is currently a shortage of teachers. 

Scotland is as internationalist as the rest of the UK, if not more so, continuously retaining EU students’ home fee status and opting to fly the EU flag over Holyrood. Hence, it would bode well for the Scottish Conservative and Labour parties to emphasise their intention to re-enter TIMSS and PIRLS, STEM and literacy-oriented international bodies respectively, which the SNP uncharacteristically took Scotland out of. Re-entering these organisations would also help monitor how Scotland is measuring up in several matrices that have been neglected previously, both allowing for public pressure and legislative attention. 

Scottish Labour have their own diverging proposals for repairing the Scottish education system after the pandemic, of which five are singled out in their plans. Firstly, their new leader, Anas Sarwar intends to implement a personal “Comeback” plan and a tutoring programme for every pupil, alongside “Summer Comeback” passes to grant children free access to sporting facilities. Those three sweeping ambitions may siphon some support away from the SNP, as the nationalists’ newly released election manifesto aims to reform the educational system through increased accountability and fairness without providing any exact plans for repairing the damage done by the pandemic. 

Nonetheless, the absence of any costings of Labour’s plans leaves them open to criticism and fails to distinguish them, as both the SNP and the Conservatives provided some costs for their programmes. For example, Scottish Labour promises the same number of new teachers as the Conservatives; with no description of the costs involved.  

Nevertheless, the two remaining Labour education pledges would both win an argument and redress SNP failures. Firstly, the guarantee of free exam resits including college places for every child whose exams were impacted by the pandemic mixes compassion for unfairly downgraded pupils with a practical suggestion. Contrastingly, the SNP intends to reform exams going forward, with less of a retrospective view of policy-making. 

Secondly, the Labour motion to give priority to teachers in distributing vaccines seems inherently logical for people irrespective of party allegiance. If those modest but believable proposals were implemented, alongside the sort of reparative measures Labour espoused in their 2017 Scottish General election “Investing in Scotland’s future” manifesto, both the party’s fortunes at the ballot box and Scottish schools would benefit. 

More ambitiously, Labour’s review of the aforementioned Curriculum for Excellence would aim to repair a failing system with an overhaul that caters more credibly to graduating in the current job market. This echoes the “Skills for Jobs” White Paper released in January by the Department of Education, given the emphasis on vocational education. More progressive policies such as granting free school meals for all primary pupils and the massive expansion of funded early years childcare may appeal to the SNP’s progressive voter base, yet the absence of funding plans for them casts doubt on their implementability. 

In most metrics of historical performance, the SNP’s period in control of all of Scottish education policy has increasingly failed pupils. With neither prominent opposition party on the way to anything resembling a controlling majority, the main importance of these policies is to win enough votes to deny the SNP an outright majority. Young voters are more visibly impacted by the SNP’s blunders on education than ever before in the wake of exam cancellations and uncertainty over learning on-campus, therefore this usually reliably independence-supporting group could be appealed to. 

While both Labour and the Conservatives are making inroads in propounding workable solutions that could appeal to the electorate, more could be made of an area where the Scottish Government is so open to criticism. 

Jan is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

John Cope: It’s time to ditch the disadvantage gap

By Centre Write, Education

Conservatism is an immensely broad church, but one thing it is united on is a fundamental belief in fairness of opportunity. There is also agreement that a knowledge-rich education, grounded in skills and practical understanding, is the greatest driver of opportunity. Education is therefore at the core of the party’s values: supporting individual initiative, empowerment, progress with an appreciation of the past, and an economy fizzing with talent and innovation. Education is conservatism in action.

There has been significant progress in education since 2010 – academies, free schools, apprenticeships, higher standards, and greater discipline, to name a few – but the claim of being the natural party of education can never be taken for granted. A decade into government, the Conservative Party’s ideas on education need a jolt of energy to keep them fresh. As we emerge from the pandemic, giving substance to what levelling up means in education is an opportunity to do just that.

As the 2019 Conservative manifesto states, “talent is evenly spread, but opportunity is not”. The reality behind this is 16 year-olds entitled to free school meals are, on average, 18 months of learning behind their friends and peers not on free school meals through no fault of their own, but because of their circumstances. This varies dramatically across the country, from just half a month behind in Westminster to just over 26 months in Blackpool, according to the Education Policy Institute. This is known as the ‘disadvantage gap’. To be clear, this was the situation before the pandemic. We should be braced for a brutal widening.

While the disadvantage gap has been very gradually closing until recently, we cannot escape the reality that we have an education system where a gap of this scale has become normalised. At the current rate of the gap closing, we are centuries away from opportunity being levelled up. This gap feeds through into people not being able to go to university or start a degree apprenticeship. It also translates into lost scientists, entrepreneurs, innovators, and leaders of the future who don’t get the grades they need because of their start in life, not their talent.

The Government’s own research from 2017 shows that if the rest of the country levelled up to London – where the disadvantage is smallest, but still large – around 125,000 pupils would achieve five or more GCSES or equivalent at A*-C, including English and maths. As a result, their lifetime earnings would on average rise by roughly £110,000, boosting our economy by approximately £20 billion. This illustrates the scale of lost opportunity.

If the party is to say to the country, and the ‘Red Wall’ in particular, that opportunity has been levelled up, the disadvantage gap must have closed by the time of the next election. The party should be open about this – and every education policy or spending decision should be guided by the objective to close the gap.

There should also be a public sense of impatience in every ministerial speech at the injustice the gap represents. Any instinct to slip into defending the past should be resisted – the party should unashamedly say tackling the gap drives policy making. Speaking about the disadvantage gap isn’t a sign of weakness, but a sign of honesty and substance.

Some call for grand change and ripping up the system. I disagree – we largely know what works, and the areas that need improvement.

For example, evidence that the gap opens up well before children even go to school is clear, making the case for funding high quality childcare, early literacy, and numeracy in the early years up to age four obvious.

The Pupil Premium already focusses funding onto the most disadvantaged schools, and was delivered under a Conservative-led government. We now need to look closely at how well that money is being spent, using the evidence provided by the Education Endowment Foundation. This needs to be combined with better teacher professional development – after all, without teachers a school’s just a building.

We should acknowledge, and better fund, the reality that schools and colleges have become so much more than places of learning. As a school and college governor, I’ve seen first-hand how, more than ever, educators have become community anchors: supporting fractured families, mental health first aid, food poverty, or ‘wrap around’ care.

Excellent initiatives like the free online Oak National Academy that is helping students catch up after lost learning in the pandemic should become permanent and focus on closing the gap. This will require addressing Ofcom’s estimate that 1.8 million children have no laptop or other device to use at home – a digital gap cannot be allowed to compound the disadvantage gap.

The Government’s Skills White Paper must deliver the necessary ten-year plan that breaks down the artificial barriers between HE, FE, and apprenticeships, so young people can choose the high-quality option that is best for them. This should include reversing the more than 50% collapse in part-time learners since 2010, and following through on the ambitious ‘lifetime skills guarantee’ so more adults can access training.

These are just some of the ingredients needed – there are many others. Most importantly though, it’s time for the Government to say loudly: there is an enormous disadvantage gap, it’s not acceptable in a fair society, and this Government will be the one that finally tackles it head on.

John Cope is a Conservative Party member and a leading education thinker. This article first appeared in our Centre Write magazine The Great Levelling?. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Images: Pennie Withers]

Debbie Leach: Human health and the environment are intimately connected

By Centre Write, Education

We all like simple solutions.  There is reason to celebrate when the answers to difficult or complex problems are straightforward, simple to implement and have long term cost effectiveness.  The break-up of traditional silo thinking that separated the health and environmental agendas is supremely exciting and there could be huge gains.  

But this is a journey rather than a quick win.  It is crucial that we gain better understanding of the ways in which nature prescribing can be beneficial, how benefits can best be achieved and what the barriers might be.  This is not about looking a gift horse in the mouth – it is about making sure we know how to ride it.

There is already an undeniable body of evidence that connecting with green spaces and nature – particularly through shared activities – can improve our health and wellbeing and help tackle a range of chronic conditions. Data from Natural England shows that the NHS could save more than £2 billion in treatment costs if everyone in England had equal access to good quality green space.  Now a £4.7M pilot scheme will examine how to scale-up nature prescribing services to reduce health inequalities and improve mental health through test projects delivered by fifteen Health and Social Care Partnerships starting in April.  The Government wants 1,000 link workers in place by the end of 2021 to connect health services with local activities.  It is hoped that by 2023 – 2024 at least 900,000 people will improve their physical and mental health through referrals.

The environmental voluntary sector is ideally placed to deliver these activities. Thames21 connects people with nature by putting healthy rivers back at the heart of community life. Engaging, educating and empowering communities is integral to our work to transform rivers. Providing people with meaningful, purposeful shared activities in blue-green space is what we do, and for many years Thames21 has seen the mental and physical health benefits first-hand.  Thames21 is currently working in partnership with the London Borough of Enfield on a programme that will involve the community in creating new woodlands and wetlands. It specifically plans to deliver public health benefits through nature-prescribing and volunteer programmes – while reducing flood risk and creating a better river environment

I am personally convinced that green space with water is most beneficial of all for mind and body. Imagine visiting your local urban park. It is almost certainly a great natural space with grass, plants and trees and where you can see a wider sky.  Next, add water to this picture. Imagine a stream flowing through that park and immediately you have added life, movement, light and reflections.  You have added the sounds of nature and health as the water is a magnet for wildlife which chatters in the trees, splashes, swims, hovers.  There is the balm to the spirit that we all feel when we look into a clear pool or watch the water gliding past.  Our well-being has been turbo-charged, just by adding water.

The benefits of nature prescribing do not result from green spaces alone, but from what you do in them. Providing a sense of practical purpose, bringing people together through shared goals around such widely appealing features as rivers, can potentially provide some of the most effective pathways to mental and physical health.  Opportunities for shared and constructive activities emerge from the challenges that our rivers face:  a concerted drive to restore our rivers to health, to improve their biodiversity and beauty, helping to tackle issues ranging from plastic pollution to habitat loss.

All this potential needs to be comprehensively tested and evidenced to ensure that as we scale up nature prescribing, funding and opportunities are targeted to produce the greatest health benefits.

We will not solve the health crisis simply by writing out green prescriptions.  How do we prevent huge numbers of prescriptions being stuffed in a drawer and forgotten?  When you are feeling ill or up against it, to be told briskly that you should do something active outdoors in green spaces may not be appreciated, particularly in the early days of a new scheme. First, nature-prescribing must be made as easy and as attractive as possible for people to take up.  We need the right structure and support in place to make it easier for those who are feeling vulnerable to take those first steps to involvement and towards the benefits we know are there.

Next: to be cost effective and ensure long term health benefits, nature prescribing must be sustainable.  It should signpost and provide pathways to greater long term involvement, back to long-term physical and mental health. It needs to connect people to activities which have a track record of sustained involvement; that draw people in so that they want to continue and develop things further. 

The evidence for nature or social prescribing is there, but essential detail is lacking. We need more evidence on the most effective type and manner of nature prescribing and how the benefits to human health can be maximised.  And once collected we need this to be analysed and shared. There must be a commitment from Government now – not just to nature prescribing but to consistently evaluating its effectiveness. The Government needs to commit to this in the long term.  Long- term investment is vital if we are to evidence the benefits to chronic conditions.

Success does not just depend on the Government, health care providers and the beneficiaries alone. Can the environmental sector a) adapt to accommodate large-scale nature prescribing and b) should it?  The environmental sector is governed by charitable objectives which are fundamentally environmental.  I personally believe that the interdependence of people and the environment makes nature prescribing a natural development, but the question will need to be asked and considered.

Activity programmes of organisations such as Thames21 could be tailored to meet health, and wellbeing outcomes.  Environmental volunteering sessions could be developed that are focussed on engagement or which target those who would benefit most, and activities tailored to deliver the best health and wellbeing outcomes. There is the potential to create a journey through a series of volunteering steps and foster a growing commitment from beneficiaries that could lead them into long term, positive change for the rest of their lives.  But for such things to happen there must be real appreciation of the potential benefits of nature prescribing.

Over the coming months, as vaccines start to take us out of the Coronavirus Pandemic, demand for environmental volunteering will rocket. The link with health and well-being has been underlined ever more strongly this year.  Increasingly it is understood that human health and the environment are intimately connected and that we cannot tackle one crisis without the other.

Debbie is the Chief Executive of Thames21. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Stefan Marks]

Josh Jones: Free schools — A very Conservative Revolution

By Centre Write, Education

Michael Gove reportedly has a bust of Lenin in his office alongside Thatcher’s portrait, reflecting his admiration for revolutionaries of all stripes. Certainly, his mass expansion of the ‘academisation/free schools’ program was revolutionary, passing the Education Bill in just 77 days after taking office.  The implementation was similarly speedy, with over 50% of schools becoming (or applying to become) academies by 2012, after Gove personally wrote to every Head Teacher across England, inviting them to convert to academies.

With this change, it is useful to clarify important details.  An academy is a school funded directly by the Department for Education and is independent of local authority control. They are self-governing and, although still subject to Ofsted inspections, have greater freedoms over what and how they teach. Academies were originally developed under the Blair government, but their radical expansion over the last decade is Gove’s brainchild.  

Originally, schools could either be forced to convert as part of a government intervention for a failing school, or could voluntarily convert themselves. However, under Gove’s New Free Schools program, individuals and organisations could now apply to directly open free schools, with over 400 opening between 2010-2015. Free schools have the same legal status as academies, the only difference being that rather than converting they have been specifically established as academies.

Such rapid change, especially with educational authorities being disempowered, was likely to be controversial. Caution must be paid when examining academisation whilst it’s still in its infancy. However, it seems clear that the new expansion of academies has successfully raised school standards.

Early examples of academisation under Blair created GCSE results above the national average. Of the academies created by Labour, 80% saw improvements, with 40% seeing their results at GCSE rise by 10% in just one year. 

Average GCSE performance for these schools are now more than 50% higher than they were prior to academisation. Mossbourne Academy, which was formerly the failing Hackney Downs School, became the most improved school in the country after converting.

Primary schools particularly benefit from academisation. By 2019, primary academies had outperformed local authority primaries at Key Stage 1, including in phonics, reading,writing and mathematics.

Free primary schools are also twice as likely to be ranked ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, with 36% of free primaries qualifying for the grade versus 16% of local authority primary schools. PISA scores, an international educational metric measured by the OECD, saw rising scores for the UK by 2018, moving up from 22nd in reading to 14th globally, and similarly from 27th to 18th in maths, compared to three years earlier. 

These improvements will not be wholly attributable to academisation but they were achieved with stagnant or declining funding, suggesting such organisational changes are responsible.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has attributed the ‘good performance’ of academies to ‘high quality leadership and governance’ and ‘improved teaching’. They also found that, controlled for pupils’ personal circumstances and prior attainment, academies’ performance at GCSE is ‘substantially better, on average, than other schools.’ 

Detractors have argued that these results simply reflect academies drawing more able pupils, despite their lack of selectivity, similar to the old two-tier system, with academies as ‘the new grammars.’ However, with academies admitting on average  higher proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals, and with special education needs and the NAO suggesting ‘improvements are unlikely to have been achieved through the selection of more able pupils,’ this criticism seems ill founded. 

However, some criticisms appear more justified. Advocates for academisation suggest it is a useful mechanism for facilitating better schools in deprived areas, and helping to raise aspiration and attainments for deprived children. This hasn’t always been the case, with more free schools opening in areas of high school quality (such as London) rather than worse-performing areas such as the North East. Additionally, although free schools are more likely to open in areas of deprivation, the level of pupils admitted into free schools on free school meals is slightly lower than might be expected, with 24% of reception at free schools on free school meals, versus 32% nationally.

However this doesn’t seem to condemn the academies program, instead suggesting that more efforts need to be made to spread the beneficial effects of academisation to areas of lower school standards and encourage pupils from more deprived backgrounds to attend. 

Despite the Department for Education’s assertion that free schools received three applications per place, when taken into account the parent preference system used to select schools, it is arguable that free schools are among the least popular. 

However, this may well be down to the fact a lot of these schools are very new, untested and possibly even unknown within the community and are thus less likely to be selected. This does not diminish the evidence that free schools are effective in raising pupil attainment. 

Overall, it seems the academisation initiative has been widely successful in raising school standards, and presents an exciting new model for schools of the future. Despite some limited issues in regards to uptake and distribution of new free schools, they appear to be serving their communities well, with more being necessary to widen opportunity for the most deprived. Conservatives should naturally find a system in which individual initiative, whether that of staff or of parents, attractive, as opposed to a top down system which is vulnerable to public bureaucracy. This is especially true when individual initiative seems to ‘provide the results.’

Josh is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

James Cullimore: Illiteracy in the UK

By Centre Write, Education

If you’re reading this blog on your laptop or tablet, it’s probably difficult to imagine not being able to access or share information in this way. Written communication has become integral to modern life. To be illiterate is to be unable to fully participate in contemporary political, economic or cultural life. 

Whilst illiteracy was the norm for most people in most places for most of history, the UK led the way in reversing this trend from the beginning of the early modern period. During the Enlightenment, the aspiration for universal literacy was born and legislation instituting compulsory education followed in the nineteenth century.

Consequently, in the UK today, we tend to think of illiteracy as a problem of a bygone era. When politicians discuss education and skills, they are more likely to talk about training the computer programmers, engineers and medical professionals of the future, rather than aiding the almost nine million people in our country who are functionally illiterate; that being a person who can effectively engage in literacy which is required to function in their society. 

Detecting a neglected injustice, Jeremy Hunt rightly placed this issue at the heart of his leadership campaign during the summer. Illiteracy costs the UK £37 billion a year. The OECD has found a correlation between literacy proficiency levels and a country’s GDP per capita. With the UK ranked 17th amongst 34 OECD countries for literacy, failure to properly address this issue is having a detrimental impact on our prosperity and international competitiveness. With another OECD report revealing that England is the only developed country in which the literacy proficiency of young adults is lower than those approaching retirement, the risk is that the UK falls further behind in the future.

Illiteracy also has a huge individual cost, negatively affecting people’s health and economic prospects. In England, illiterate adults are more likely to be unemployed and three times more likely to report poorer health than those with advanced reading comprehension. A boy born in an area with the most serious literacy challenges such as Stockton Town Centre, is expected to live a quarter of a century shorter than a boy born somewhere with high literacy levels, such as North Oxford. Tackling illiteracy goes to the heart of addressing health inequalities.

Eliminating illiteracy is also integral to improving our mental health. Reading for pleasure can help adults with their mental wellbeing, and just 30 minutes of reading a week makes an individual 20% more likely to report greater life satisfaction. In our schools, children performing above the expected standard for reading are three times more likely to have high levels of mental wellbeing than their underperforming peers. Books can be an important tool in tackling the mental health crisis.

Equipping people with the reading and writing skills they need to fulfil their potential will also extend opportunity to the most disadvantaged in our society. Socioeconomic background has a profound impact on an individual’s standard of literacy. This trend can be detected from an early age, with 16% fewer disadvantaged pupils passing their phonics screening check in year 1 compared to all other students. Tackling illiteracy is integral to equalising opportunity and improving social mobility.

It is important to note that recent education reforms have had a positive impact on literacy standards in our schools. In 2018, 82% of 5 to 6-year olds met the expected standard in their phonics screening check, an increase of 25 percent since the introduction of the check in 2012. However, we still have a long way to go in ensuring that all young people leave school with the literacy skills they need to get on in life. Whilst illiteracy amongst teenagers in the UK is below the OECD average, it remains higher than in many of our international competitors.

In spring next year, the University of Oxford will once again play host to the World Literacy Summit. The UK should seize this opportunity to rediscover its historic role as a world leader in tackling illiteracy. The next government should focus investment in early intervention and improve access to books for children from deprived backgrounds. Meanwhile, we cannot forget the nine  million adults suffering, often in silence, under the scourge of illiteracy. The stigma surrounding illiteracy and a lack of awareness of adult services, prevents many from seeking the support they need. Promoting adult education can improve their job prospects and enable them to participate more fully in civil and political life. 

Improvements in literacy rates have long been a sign of socioeconomic progress. The success of the next government should be measured using this tried and tested metric.

James Cullimore is undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.