Education and inequality.

Britton, Andrew

This note is based on the discussion which took place at a meeting of the Members Forum on 9th February. The meeting was attended by business leaders and experts representing the Corporate Members of the Institute, as well as Institute Governors and staff. It draws on the programme of research by the team at the Institute led by Professor Prais the full results of which will be published in the spring. The views expressed here are my own reflections, rather than the consensus of those who took part in the discussion.

Comparative studies of education and training in this country and on the Continent over many years have shown that the British system has failed to develop the potential of all but the most able young people entering the labour force. The recent report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Inquiry on Income and Wealth drew attention to the exceptional increase in income inequality in Britain since the late-1970s. In particular the poorest 20 to 30 per cent of the population did not share at all in the benefit of economic growth. They say that 'it is hard to overstate the importance of raising education and training standards for the problems we have described'. They are clearly right to make this connection.

Tests of mathematics and practical skills show exceptionally wide variation of knowledge and achievement amongst British school children. This divergence is amplified by the concentration of resources on higher education for the minority rather than craft or intermediate level training for the majority. These are long-standing characteristics of British education and training, and historically they have not always been associated with an exceptionally wide dispersion of personal incomes. However changes seem to have taken place in the labour market since the late 1970s which have worked in favour of those who have marketable skills and against those who do not.

Labour markets have become more competitive. This is in part the result of deregulation: the end of incomes policy, the reduced power of trade unions, the absence of legal minima and so on. At least as important has been the change in the attitudes of employers, encouraged no doubt by increased competition in product markets, both national and international, indeed forced on them in many cases by the threat of business failure. Firms have shed labour, cutting out jobs which are not indispensable to their main business; part of the rise in income inequality results from the rise in unemployment. Firms have also learnt how to relate individual reward better to individual promise or achievement; logically this must tend to widen the dispersion of pay. The public sector has been in the forefront of both these trends. Economic theory suggests that the result will be a more efficient allocation of resources, as the costs of different kinds of labour correspond more closely to their marginal products. No doubt in the process some individuals become rich or poor simply as the result of good or bad luck. That is just a side-effect. The case for a more competitive market is that it creates the right incentives for both the employer and the employee.

However the initial wide disparity of skill levels created by the British education and training system cannot be attributed to the market mechanism, and there is no reason to suppose that it benefits the economy as a whole. On the contrary it is a serious handicap, making the production of high quality goods and services in Britain very difficult except on a small scale. Inequality also contributes to the burden of taxation falling on industry directly or indirectly, since a high proportion of those who do badly at school must end up dependent on social security benefits for part at least of their incomes.

In social terms the rise in inequality is even more unwelcome. The most serious social problem is unemployment, which deprives those affected of their chance to participate in production. But poverty in work can also be alienating and damage what the French call the 'cohesion' of society. From every point of view we need to examine the causes of variation in skill levels, with a view not only to raising average standards but more particularly to raising the standards of those now falling far behind the best.

Training

In comparison with the Continent we spend more on university education and less on vocational training. This does not mean however that we should, or could, finance the necessary expansion of the one at the expense of the other. The social return to higher expenditure on training would justify its finance from a levy on industry as a whole or indeed from general taxation. But the main requirement is a redirection of spending within the training area.

Employers should pay for the more specialist training which is of direct benefit to them. (They could reasonably expect employees to repay some of that cost if they change jobs within a contract period after their training is completed.) Public spending should be concentrated on basic transferable skills. Within that definition one should include craftsmanship, as distinct from specialised craft skills. The mastery of one craft, and the capacity for sustained careful work it implies, is the best foundation for the acquisition of other crafts later on as changes in technology require. The basic requirements for skilled work also include communication both written and spoken, presentation of ideas and information in an attractive style and so on. Numeracy is of very general application, as are various levels of computer programming and use. At present by far the most urgent task for vocational training is to put right the failure of schooling as it affects the lower half of the ability range.

The introduction of National Vocational Qualifications, based on testing competence in performing specific tasks, has not addressed the main weaknesses of the British training system. By providing nationally-recognised certificates of existing skills it could help to raise awareness of their value, provided that the testing is rigorous and independent. It has not however encouraged the general training or apprenticeships required by young people entering the labour market for the first time. Indeed it may have diverted attention from the main problem, which is a deficiency in basic skills that has its origins in schooling.

Schooling

In contrast to practice on the Continent, classes in this country are commonly taught in small groups; each proceeds at is own pace and under its own steam. On the Continent whole-class teaching is much more important. The intention is that none of the children should be left behind in the progress of the group as a whole. It seems that this approach enables the pupils of average or below average ability to make better progress than is the rule in this country. No doubt other factors may be involved as well, but the organisation of the classroom may well be of particular importance. An Institute project is now under way in 15 primary schools in this country to assess the effects of whole-class teaching. The dilemma is that it can be undertaken only if all the pupils begin at least roughly at the same level of attainment.

Some inequality of ability is of course inborn, and in some subjects it may be bound to increase in the course of schooling. This divergence would perhaps be minimised if teachers from the beginning of primary schooling were encouraged to teach the class as a unit, making sure that even the less able manage to master each stage before going on to the next. At a later stage, in mathematics and some other similar subjects, it would appear that whole class teaching will only be effective if the pupils are taught in 'streams' or 'sets'. This may appear to be divisive, but probably helps the less able make better progress than they could if left to trail behind when working 'at their own pace' in a class of very mixed ability.

Concern about standards of schooling led to the introduction of a National Curriculum. There is little, if any, evidence that this has yet got to the root of the problem, despite the great efforts devoted to it by teachers and their advisers. The main need is not to prescribe in detail what should be taught across the whole range of subjects. It is to ensure that no pupil fails to acquire the grounding in the basic skills of literacy and numeracy without which he or she will be excluded from effective participation in the labour market.

Conclusion

An unkind critic of British society would describe it as elitism tempered by patronage. Its institutions actually favour the most able, whilst witnessing to the bad conscience the beneficiaries sometimes feel about the consequences for the others. Whilst actually rewarding only the few, the others are supposed to be spared the early experience of failure. This ignores the possibility that the risk of explicit failure might provide an effective spur for further effort.

Those who would seek to limit or reduce inequality should ask themselves which is the best approach. Should we recognise that some children (and some adults) are more gifted that others (in terms of potential earning power) and ensure that the less gifted make full use of the gifts they have - or else insist that everyone has the potential to be a doctor or a company chairman, as if no lower ambition than that were worth achieving?

The experience of the last ten to twenty years in this country shows an increasing contrast between individual economic success and failure. This is how a competitive market works. But the education of nearly all children in this country is a collective rather than an individual responsibility. Economic failure for many begins in the primary school. That is where the fundamental problem needs to be addressed.