Tag: Elizabeth Truss

Below is the text of the speech made by Elizabeth Truss on childcare reform on 12th December 2013 to the Family Childcare Trust in London.

Thank you, it’s a pleasure to be here – and thanks for the Family Childcare Trust for putting on today’s conference.

I’ve just come from a visit to Ephraim nursery in Peckham. They’re a private nursery, with their premises actually inside the school building of a primary and secondary academy, and I was meeting their staff with Boris Johnson.

It’s always impressive to see a funny, warm, charismatic professional in action – charming children and media alike, in a high-quality nursery.

And it was good to have Boris there, too.

Seriously, though, it’s good to have such a dedicated champion of early years in City Hall.

He knows it’s really important – for making sure the next generation do really well, and also for helping working parents in the city.

And one of the things that really impressed me this morning was the way the nursery works with parents.

It’s open from 8 until 6. Sandra, its leader, told me about how they talk to each individual parent about their needs, and what sort of care is right for them. There’s one mum who wants to do a degree – so they’re working with her to offer funded places across 2 days, rather than in one block, to allow her to do her course.

It’s a great example of catering to all age ranges at a single location, with everyone working together to give parents the flexibility they need.

That’s the sort of childcare I want to talk about today.

Flexibility and choice

Because families where both parents work are now in the majority in the developed world.

Here in England, a third of mothers stay at home and two-thirds go out to work. Fathers are increasingly involved in the upbringing of their children.

We need to support all these families in the choices they make – making life simpler and more fulfilling.

That’s why we’re introducing flexible parental leave, for example, so that they can decide how to manage their lives when they have a baby.

Likewise – I want families to have a range of flexible options when it comes to childcare and schooling, to suit their family circumstances.

We all know that even as the economy is picking up, childcare is a big item on tight family budgets.

And it’s not just a question of costs: all too often, childcare is too inflexible.

Whether it’s not being able to find a childminder, or a nursery in the right location with available places, or a school that offers after-hours care, we know that too many parents can’t get the mix of childcare that they need.

We want a system that gives them real flexibility – that gives more choice to more parents.

So what are we doing to achieve that?

I want to focus on 3 big things today.

First, we’re increasing the amount of childcare that’s available, and its flexibility – across schools, childminders, and nurseries.

Second, we’re driving up quality.

And finally, we’re helping parents with the cost of care.

Increasing availability is crucial

I believe increasing the amount and flexibility of childcare is the single most important thing we can do to help parents. That’s where the biggest difference is going to be made.

It creates more types of childcare, for parents to get the choice of care that they want – whether it’s in schools, or nurseries, or childminding.

And offering that choice – increasing supply – will help us get value for money, too.

At the moment, we spend a lot – more than the OECD average – yet parents are paying some of the highest costs in Europe.

When parents find their options limited, the real problem is that over-complex funding and unnecessary bureaucracy have stopped childcare providers growing and flourishing.

So that’s what we’re reforming.

Childminders

Look at childminders, for example.

They are popular, flexible, and local. Many parents prefer home-based care, especially for the youngest children. They also suit parents who work shifts.

But the number of childminders almost halved over the past decade.

Becoming a childminder meant a mass of paperwork.

Funding rules meant it was hard for childminders to access government funding – just 1% of funded early years places were provided by childminders

And there are also fewer young people entering the profession.

So our solution is first, to level the playing field in funding for independent childminders.

Since September, any good or outstanding childminder can automatically offer funded places for 2- to 4-year-olds.

Fewer than 4,000 childminders were accessing funding. Now, 32,000 are now automatically eligible.

We’re also creating new routes to becoming a childminder in the first place.

We’ve had a number of roundtables at the department with childminders. And they tell me that setting up is a lot of work.

Childminders have to register with Ofsted. They have to spend about £80 on a medical check. About £100 on a pre-registration course. Up to £100 for paediatric first aid training. Public liability, car and home insurance, professional membership, DBS checks, buying equipment, toys, books, creating a website, sorting marketing and accountancy.

I could go on – but I think I would probably bore you.

It’s a lot of money – we estimate at least £800 – and a lot of time.

That’s one of the reasons we’ve enabled the creation of childminder agencies.

By helping with that admin, agencies will simplify the process for becoming a childminder. They could spread the cost, reduce the hassle, and use economies of scale to make it cheaper.

If existing childminders want to join an agency – and it’s completely optional – then they will benefit from that shared invoicing, marketing and training support too.

And for parents, they’ll make it easier to find and employ a childminder – taking vouchers, and giving access to lots of childminders in their area.

At the moment, 20 organisations across the country are working with us to trial childminder agencies. I know that some of them are here today.

Some are private businesses, some are led by local authorities, one’s a children’s centre, some are school based, one’s a charity, one’s a joint venture between a business and a council.

All of them are committed to seeing what works.

And in time, we expect agencies to increase the numbers of childminders – France, where creches familiales have similar functions to agencies, has 5 times as many childminders per person than England.

We want to see more childminders – both independent and agency, working with other types of provision – so that parents have flexibility and choice.

Nurseries

Nurseries are equally essential, giving a really important, valued service to parents, and making up about a quarter of all childcare.

So parents need to get good use from them, too.

We’ve simplified funding. Any good or outstanding nursery will be able to access money – just like childminders – without jumping through any further bureaucratic hoops – and we estimate about 80% of nurseries will automatically get funding.

And we’re making it easier to expand.

We want planning rules – a long, cumbersome process that’s a big frustration for many nurseries – to be much more straightforward too, so they can convert office and shops without requiring additional planning permission.

And we’re replacing a patchwork of local quality and registration standards – with single, national quality and registration standards – so that expansion across more than one authority is easier.

That frees up nurseries that want to grow.

It means that local authorities can focus on encouraging the best providers to their area, and support the weakest providers.

School nurseries

There’s one final part of the puzzle here – schools.

Schools nurseries are an under-appreciated part of childcare.

Half of London places are provided in schools, and they make up fully one-third of the national childcare market – some 800,000 early years places.

But the hours are sometimes inflexible. Most only do 9 to 3. That’s if parents are lucky.

Just imagine if they did 8 to 6. That extra 4 hours a day – two-thirds more time – it would revolutionise parents’ options.

We want to encourage that model.

That’s why I was with Boris this morning, and I’m delighted that Wandsworth want to lead the way, and want to encourage their school nurseries to offer places from 8 to 6.

Some are already showing this model works. Like Oakwood school in Eastbourne. They have a mixture of funded and fee-paying care – which in turn, makes local government funding go further. They now generate income from their nursery, and by clever timing of sessions, they’ve filled almost all their spaces.

And there are others – like Parbold Douglas C of E Academy in Wigan, who have a nursery from age 2 up, and are open from 7:45 to 6. Or St John Vianney RC Primary School in Hartlepool – who run from 7:30 to 6:30.

Many of you will have seen Sally Morgan arguing for school nurseries to start offering places at age 2.

I agree with Sally. And we are helping 50 schools trial places for 2-year-olds, in on-site nurseries.

Because as Sally said, by the time they start school, poorer children have already fallen the equivalent of 19 months behind their more affluent peers.

I want to make it absolutely clear that these children aren’t sitting at desks studying trigonometry.

I recently visited Oasis Academy Hadley, for example, which is offering 2-year-old places. They were painting their feet to make patterns on the floor, running up and down this enormous strip of paper. The point is they were engaging with their teachers and nursery nurses, and learning. That’s what I’m talking about – not mortarboards and blackboards, which is sometimes what people have in their minds.

About 375 schools now offer funded nursery places for 2-year-olds – many of them for the first time – a welcome development.

School-based childcare for the over 5s

And of course it doesn’t stop at age 5.

Schools are already trusted locations, and are obviously convenient for parents who only have to do one school run.

But often, their facilities sit empty for hours each day.

One man who saw the potential to change that was Jack Hatch. He’s headteacher of St Bede Academy, in Bolton.

He saw there was a need for childcare in the area, and felt St Bede’s had a mission to help local families beyond the day-to-day running of the school.

So they started providing childcare, from as early as 7am, up to 6pm, up to 52 weeks of the year, to 7 other local schools – as well as 3 full daycare nurseries. All of St Bede Services’ settings are rated good or outstanding.

But that was in the face of red tape.

If a school wanted to offer care before 8 or after 4, they had to bring in more staff. They had to meet different qualifications rules. They had to consult locally, get permission from the local authority – and meet different planning requirements. And they had to make anyone providing childcare elsewhere register separately at each site.

We want to make it easier – and encourage school-based childcare.

Over the summer we consulted on making it easier for schools to bring in other providers, without that unnecessary red tape.

We’ve already made it much easier for schools to extend the school day – reducing the hours that parents need to cover – and want to do the same for their term dates, too.

We want to align the rules for during and around the school day – so that it is a much simpler operation.

So now, you don’t have to be a complete hero like Jack Hatch – this is something all headteachers can do, and ought to think about.

The new rules will make it easier to bring in private or voluntary sector childcare providers on-site – buying in their specialist expertise.

Or if schools want to, then it will be easier for them to provide the services themselves.

So across schools, childminders and daycare nurseries, we’re expanding availability.

The latest figures show the total number of primary schools, nurseries or childminders offering childcare rose from 88,000 in 2010 to 90,000 in in 2011.

That’s 2 million early years places – a 5% increase on 2009.

Children’s centres

I want to talk briefly about children’s centres.

They’re often mentioned in the childcare debate.

Just to be clear, they provide 1% of all daycare places – compare that to school-based childcare, which is 30%, and it’s a much smaller number.

They are an important part of the support we provide for children and families. But that support is primarily about pre-natal, post-natal care, parenting classes, stay and play, providing support and networks for those parents – I was part of my network, after I had my daughters.

We have to be clear that they’re there for everybody in the local community. And in our guidance that we put out earlier this year, we made it very clear that local authorities have a responsibility to make sure children’s centres are accessible to all parents.

Of course we want focus on disadvantaged families – but unless we get all parents through the door, how are we to know which are those that need most help?

And I’m delighted to see a lot of children’s centres working much more closely with their local health services.

I met children’s centre leaders in Watford recently, and it was great to see the range of services they provided – maternal support, antenatal classes, midwives on call – and more. So parents are getting a seamless service, from expecting a baby, through birth, right through early childhood.

Because the wider purpose of children’s centres is to improve outcomes for children. And that’s what we want them to focus on.

There’s this rumour that hundreds are closing. It’s not true. Figures from local authorities tell us about 1% of the total number have closed since 2010 – and a few have opened, too.

And we know from 4Children that 1 million parents using them – so they are thriving.

But I think we can go further. I want to see them even more integrated with health services – especially with health and wellbeing boards.

And DCLG have announced a fund, which local authorities can bid for, to make sure services suit parents – so that parents can find all the services in one place, for example, by sharing sites – rather than having to travel from service to service. We all know how important that sort of local, accessible service is.

I want to encourage everyone to apply – or get their local authority to apply – because it’s a great opportunity to make sure more money gets to the frontline and services work for parents.

Improving quality

Availability is a big issue for parents. So is quality. But the 2 are linked.

By simplifying funding for good and outstanding providers, for example, we’re creating a race to the top. We’re funnelling money towards the best. That gives providers a good reason to get better.

And clarifying the rules means providers are focused on children – not on meeting the demands of red tape.

Take registration. At the moment, we have 2 registers, for different ages; each has different requirements; the older register is compulsory if you do more than 2 hours; but you can still register if you do less.

That’s so complicated, in one of our policy papers we resorted to showing this using a Venn diagram.

Or take inspection, where we have overlapping Ofsted and local authority rules.

Or qualifications. We used to have 400 early years qualifications, a majority of which have no maths or English requirements.

All of this duplication is confusing for parents, time-consuming for providers, and the purpose of these rules – ensuring quality – actually becomes harder when people focus on box ticking, rather than what matters: children.

So we’re improving how it works.

We’re improving registration – we’ve consulted on introducing a single, clear set of safeguarding and welfare requirements.

We’re improving inspection – and want Ofsted to be sole arbiter of standards, with consistent quality standards. Local authorities can support weaker providers, using the issues identified by Ofsted – so the two work together.

And we’re improving qualifications.

The new, more rigorous early years educator qualification will be available from 2014.

We’ve made 1,000 bursaries available for apprentices aspiring to a career in early years education. Just a fortnight ago, we announced these were increasing from £1,500 to £3,000 for the first 200 successful applicants.

And I’m pleased to say that this September, we recruited more than 2,300 trainees to become early years teachers – a 25% increase – despite strengthening the entry requirements.

All of this moves us towards a single training, regulation and quality system from 0 to 18, that’s clearer for parents, and puts better outcomes for children at the heart of reform.

Helping with costs

So that’s how we’re increasing availability and improving quality.

Our third priority is to offer support for parents, to help with the costs of childcare.

We already fund 15 hours of free childcare for every 3- and 4-year-old – worth £2,400 to each family.

And we’ve made it much more flexible so parents can take it in blocks.

And we’ve increased funding for low income 2-year-olds.

Just one month after launching the scheme, 92,000 children have benefitted – we’ve already reached an estimated 70% of the deprived children we want to.

On top of this basic entitlement, low income working families can get help for up to 70% of their additional childcare costs.

And under tax-free childcare, those on middle incomes will get up to 20% of their additional costs paid.

Our vision

So there are 3 elements to our plan.

We’re increasing the availability and flexibility of childcare – of every type.

We’re improving quality – by clarifying standards.

And we’re helping with costs.

All of those things fit together.

They create a much more coherent, less fragmented market.

They aim to create a system where parents are in the driving seat, and children get what they need.

Our vision is of childcare where families want it, at the time they need it, provided by people they trust, at a cost they can afford.

I know that families are under pressure. I know they face tough choices about how to balance work and care – not least at Christmas time.

I want it to be a real choice.

So that each family – of any shape and size – can work out what’s best for them, and their children.

Below is the text of the speech made by Elizabeth Truss at the Institute of Physics on 9th December 2013.

Thank you very much for the introduction – I’m delighted to be here at the Institute of Physics for the launch of another excellent report.

I think ‘Closing doors’ is a great name for this report, because what we’re talking about here is the way young people, particularly girls, are dropping subjects which could offer very good prospects for them and which lead to fulfilling careers.

Last week, the PISA education test scores hit the headlines, where England ranked 26th in the world for maths, 21st for science, and 23rd for reading.

If we are to do better in the PISA rankings, it’s vitally important that we particularly improve the performance of girls in critical subjects like maths and science. One thing that’s particularly interesting from the PISA report is that we had one of the lowest gender gaps in reading, where girls traditionally do better than boys, but we had one of the highest gender gaps for science, where boys traditionally do better than girls.

Too often we focus on maths and science separately, but this report gets across the broader message to parents, teachers and the wider public that all these subjects together are very important, very high value subjects.

For school pupils, that means that studying maths and sciences opens up their career options, whatever field they want to work in. In this country maths has a higher earnings premium than in other countries, which demonstrates that we are not producing enough qualified individuals in these areas to go on and work in industry.

If we think about any industry now, people with maths skills, physics skills and computer science skills are vital, because technology is transforming those industries. If we look at agriculture, often seen as a traditional industry, you will see people programming computers and doing advanced engineering. Likewise in the fashion industry; these skills are equally as important, whether it’s media or marketing.

We need to get away from the idea that it’s just a few scientists in a laboratory who need these skills. Maths and science are universal skills that all our young people need. This is shown up in the earnings premia. At age 10 and 18, those with good maths skills earn up to 10% more as adults than those without. Maths and computer science and engineering are among the top 5 degrees for future earnings.

We also know there are increasing returns to education across the OECD. If you look at the data from the 1960s to the present day, the correlation between education and economic growth has increased by a third. So educational underperformance is increasingly important for our country’s economic performance.

The Institute of Physics has pointed out the problem we have. In 2010 to 2012, 4 times as many boys took A level physics as girls did; 60% of the entries to A level maths were boys. In 2012 alone, 12 times as many boys did A level computer studies. Just 4% of state schools have equal numbers of girls and boys progressing from GCSE to A level for the subjects covered in the Institute of Physics’ report.

We also know that there’s a performance difference between girls and boys in this country. In PISA, our boys outperformed girls in maths by 13 points, 2 points bigger than the international average gender gap. In science, boys did a full 14 points better, when the OECD average gap is just 1 point.

And the issue for girls is not competence, it’s confidence. TIMSS, another international education study, tells us boys are already more confident in maths than girls at age 10. By 14, girls have actually lost confidence, and the gap with boys has grown.

This is borne out by the PISA results, which shows that we have high anxiety levels for girls in these subjects.

We need to be more conscious of the messages we’re giving to girls.

Even with the highest-performing girls, fewer of them will go on and take physics at A level. Almost half of boys who get an A* in physics GCSE go on to do the subject at A level, but for girls, it’s just a fifth. We know there is a clear relationship between a pupil’s confidence in a subject and attainment – and we have a generation of girls who are nervous about maths and science.

This is a very worrying picture. It means we’re missing an opportunity: because improving the performance of girls wouldn’t just improve their individual earnings potential. It would improve the country’s economic and educational performance, too.

But the international comparisons give us hope: none of this is inevitable. Top-performing places like Singapore or Shanghai have a negligible gender gap. In the PISA science scores, all but 4 countries that equalled or outperformed England had no significant gender gap.

So this shows us that addressing our gender gap will help us improve our PISA performance, as well as helping those girls open the doors to more careers.

I also think there’s a cultural issue in England. We can see it in the chemistry sets marketed as boy’s toys or a wider culture towards maths and science thinking that it’s something for specialists or geeks, parents saying to our daughters ‘oh, I’m useless at maths’, as if that won’t discourage them. Or perhaps the Top Gear Formula 1 feature where boys were engineers and technicians – and girls, hostesses and press officers. Relentless stereotyping is still going on.

Too often, narrow conceptions of maths or sciences convince girls that they can’t or shouldn’t do these subjects. That feeds the cycle where it’s harder for the few girls who do want to do these subjects.

This is starting to change. Thanks to our English Baccalaureate – the performance table measure that encourages pupils into the most respected subjects – the number of girls doing GCSE physics is now at a record high and has almost caught up with boys. 73,000 girls are now taking the subject compared to 76,000 boys. The critical thing is to make sure those young people continue doing the subject at A level.

A lot of the evidence shows that young people make up their mind about their career aspirations before the age of 16. We need to work with the grain of young people’s aspirations – not persuade everybody they want to be a research scientist, desirable though that career option is, but acknowledge that 60% of children want to go into business. We need to show them that maths and sciences are an excellent basis for these careers too.

Look at the CEO of Prudential, Tidjane Thiam, a nuclear physicist. Let’s have more of these examples of people who have succeeded in busineas by using their analytical skills and the knowledge they’ve gained by studying maths, physics and computer science. These aren’t just subjects for brainboxes who want to do research sciences. It’s a really important background for a career and will give you transferable skills to help you succeed.

As the institute’s report shows, schools can make a big difference here. They can use their influence to challenge gender stereotypes – or reinforce them. Many are using the new curriculum to show girls what they could do. They’re using design and technology to demonstrate the vast range of applications of maths and science, or taking advantage of programmes like Stimulating Physics Network which champion these subjects.

It’s vital that we improve the quality of teaching in these important subjects. Last week I announced new maths hubs which will work on improving the quality of teaching of mathematics at primary. We’re also offering very high bursaries to aspiring teachers in maths, physics and computer science.

A lot of it comes down to encouragement of all children, especially girls. All of us – politicians, parents, professionals – need to communicate that maths and science aren’t just useful for niche careers. They’re the foundation of the modern world.

If we do that, then we will open up options and eventually, better jobs, for our children. And this time, not just for the boys.

Below is the text of the speech made by Elizabeth Truss in London on 17th October 2013.

Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here.

I want to start by talking about Kevin Spacey.

After a hard day at the department, one of my guilty pleasures is watching the American political thriller, House of Cards.

The 90s BBC series was updated by Netflix – a service where viewers can watch TV and films over the internet.

Their version, with Mr Spacey starring as Senate Chief Whip, Frank Underwood, won critical acclaim and helped Netflix gain some 2 million customers.

Less well known is how they commissioned the series.

Most shows have to persuade editors to take a gamble, based on a pilot episode or series.

But Netflix scan audience behaviour on all their content. They knew exactly what they like, how they watch, when they pause, what they want.

So they could commission an entire series with confidence, and release it all at once – because they looked at the numbers, and knew it would work.

Of course a TV series in which a super-ambitious politician schemes, slanders and bumps off colleagues on their way to the top has little relation to reality.

You might well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment.

But anyway, the way that this show – an innovative, award-winning, profitable show – was created says so much about how the world has changed.

A changing world…

Netflix would scarcely have been imaginable 10 years ago – we were all going to Blockbuster to pick up videos then.

Now, it’s one of a generation of online businesses, ripping up the rules on how people buy and consume and invent.

And we live in a smaller world, too. Borders mean less. Companies are foot-loose, able to move and sell to almost anyone, anywhere.

They have vast new markets expanding across the world – just this week, the Chancellor is in China. Young, hungry countries are changing the shape of the global economy with millions of new middle-class consumers, professionals, and graduates.

…which needs good education

And in this world, good education is more important than ever.

The association between test scores and growth rates increased by a third between 1960 to 1980 and 1980 to 2000.

Technology and globalisation have created a ‘hollowed-out’ labour market – with demand for lots of manual jobs, demand for lots of high-end jobs, but far fewer of the old manual-skilled jobs in between.

This rewards those who develop a highly-skilled, highly-educated population.

And leaves behind those who don’t – or won’t.

Risk of relative decline

In Britain, we have a lot to do.

Last week, the OECD published results of adult literacy and numeracy tests in 24 developed countries.

It confirmed the link between education and economics: across all countries, people with the best numeracy scores were almost 4 times as likely to enjoy high wages as those with the bottom.

To quote the report: ‘incomes are higher in countries with larger proportions of adults who reach the highest levels of literacy or numeracy proficiency.’

It found that in England, 25- to 54-year-olds did much better than 16 to 24s.

Our young people came 22nd out of 24 for literacy, and 21st for numeracy.

What’s interesting is that 90% of the variation in skills across the study was within, rather than between, countries – in other words, we have a huge gap between our top – and bottom-placed adults, and a long tail of poor performance.

The case for reform

We can’t afford this. To put it in the words of the OECD’s Andreas Schleicher – the study has ‘serious economic implications’ for England.

Studies like this confirm the case for the changes we’re making.

They’re the motivating force behind our reforms. They’re evidence we have more to do – and that if we don’t, we won’t take advantage of the new world order – we won’t pay our way in the world.

That’s why we are making big changes: with a new national curriculum in 2014; new exams from 2015; and accountability reforms from 2016.

Learning from the best

We’re learning from the best in the world here.

After Germany received bad results in PISA – an international assessment – it experienced what was known as ‘PISA schock’. Over several years, they introduced reforms – lengthening the school day, strengthening the core curriculum, giving greater autonomy to teachers, creating nationwide performance standards.

Germany has since overtaken us in the rankings.

So our reforms are designed to do the same thing – to look at our results, learn from the best, and improve.

Take our EBacc – which encourages students to keep studying an academic core into late secondary, just like the best countries.

We’ve started to see its effects. In 2013, the number of GCSE entries in languages was its highest in 5 years. Individual entries in the 3 sciences were the highest in more than 16 years. We saw the highest number of history entries since at least 1997. Record numbers of girls did chemistry and physics.

Curriculum – maths

And lessons from abroad inspire changes to individual subjects, too.

Take maths – where PISA ranks us 27th.

TIMSS – another international benchmarking assessment – showed that children in England were better at data and statistics than arithmetic and algebra. So we’re removing calculators from primary tests, and encouraging children to become fluent in their times tables at a younger age, so that they get to grips with these more fundamental concepts and processes.

TIMSS also ranked us 39 of 42 for maths teaching time at age 14 – so we’re encouraging an increase in time spent on maths.

At primary, the new curriculum gives a stronger foundation – with more time on vital concepts like arithmetic or fractions.

At secondary, new GCSEs in 2015 will be more rigorous, with pupils covering more content and more challenging problems – in areas like ratios, proportions, or algebra.

Post-16 maths

And we’re transforming post-16 maths.

The best countries keep their students studying maths later. According to the Nuffield Foundation, in England just over 20% of students carry on with maths into upper secondary.

In countries like Japan – which had the highest average numeracy score in the OECD study – or Hong Kong, it’s over 95%. In Germany, it’s above 90%; in Singapore, it’s 66%.

In England, most students who do carry on with maths in England to a higher level are A-grade students. For those that want to pursue advanced maths, new A levels in 2016 will be more challenging, and we now have the first maths free schools as well.

But almost all other pupils drop the subject after GCSE. Only 33% of students who got a B, and just 24% of those with a C, kept on doing maths – worryingly, many at a lower level than they’d previously done.

That’s largely because they haven’t had appropriate courses for their ability range.

So we’re introducing core maths. Pupils who haven’t yet achieved a C at GCSE will keep studying, and those who got a good GCSE but don’t want to pursue an A level will do a range of new mid-level qualifications, specifically developed for intermediate, post-16 study.

We will spend £20 million in 2014 to 2016 to help schools and colleges prepare to teach the new courses.

We’re looking for organisations to pilot then – and I’d encourage anyone here that wants to, to get in touch with the department.

We’ve had a good response from organisations like the CBI, and are encouraging universities to start looking for core maths in their entry requirements. And last week, the International Baccalaureate Organisation announced that their maths standard level will be available online, from 2015 to 2016.

And we’re also funding Maths in Education and Industry to work with Professor Tim Gowers at Cambridge University to devise a whole new problem-solving course, based on intriguing, real-world questions.

Just to give you a few examples of the sorts of question we’re looking at:

– roughly how many people could fit into the Isle of Wight?

– British vegetarians have, on average, higher IQs than the general population. Does this show that meat is bad for your brain?

– how do Mexican waves start?

and one that’s appropriate for this place

– how much can we trust opinion polls?

Obviously, there’s only one answer to that last question – you can’t – and these are just examples from Tim’s website. But you get a sense of the type of imaginative thing being explored.

All of this means that by 2020, the vast majority of young people will be studying maths right up to 18 – to the highest standard each can achieve.

Curriculum – science, computing, design and technology

In the sciences, we’re increasing the maths element, and deepening the content on key topics like evolution, or mechanics.

The computing curriculum now includes coding from a young age, and children will learn 2 programming languages – preparing for lives in a digital world by learning complex, abstract processes from a young age.

And in DT, they will be exposed to the most exciting new technologies, from 3D printing to biomimicry.

Curriculum – English, languages and EBacc

In English, younger children will have better checks to spot those falling behind, and a renewed emphasis on spelling and grammar and punctuation across secondary school.

In the languages, primary schools will be required to teach a foreign language from age 7 – and we’ve encouraged much higher take-up at secondary, through our English baccalaureate, introduced in 2011.

Freedom for teachers

You’ve had a chance to digest, and no doubt to contribute, to the new curriculum.

But I want to be clear that we want to trust your professional judgement.

We might be clarifying what knowledge children should learn: but we will not interfere in how.

That means there is no one-size-fits-all national roll-out of the curriculum.

Resources for teachers

Still, we are making information and support available to help.

If you go to the website of the National College for Teaching and Leadership, they have an online resource, developed with headteachers, to help schools plan curriculum change.

Teaching schools are receiving additional funding to help with the transition in their alliances. If you’re not in an alliance, I encourage you to contact your local teaching school.

We fund subject-specific resources – like the National Centre for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics, which has a range of support available for schools, or the National Science Learning Centre which will shortly have more materials for the new science curriculum.

We have announced £2 million funding for master computer teachers – while ‘expert subject groups’ drawn from teaching schools, subject associations and higher education have looked at how to support the new curriculum. The computing and geography groups have already published their work – and others will follow soon.

All of this is on GOV.UK – or you can always follow DfE on Twitter – and will help you introduce the changes.

Reforming exams

The same goes for exam reform. On the department’s website, and Ofqual’s, there is a very clear timetable showing what we’re changing, when, and what you need to know.

And again, the case for reform is clear: over the past decade, even as our international rankings stagnated, exam pass rates went up.

So new, more rigorous exams will be less predictable and more stretching. Teaching of new GCSEs for English and maths will start in 2015, with other subjects starting in 2016. New A levels in most of the key subjects will be available from 2015, with maths and language A levels available from 2016.

Last month, we stopped early entry into GCSEs counting towards league-table performance.

And from 2014 GCSEs and from last month A level exams will all be sat in the summer – ending the culture of endless modules and resits.

Reforming accountability

This is a based on an essential lesson from the best systems.

They show a combination of autonomy and accountability: letting teachers get on with their job, but holding them to account.

That requires respected qualifications.

And it’s why we’re changing wider performance measures, too.

At the moment, secondary schools are judged by the proportion of pupils awarded 5 GCSEs at grade C or more.

That created perverse incentives. We all know it encouraged disproportionate focus on moving pupils over the C/D borderline. It rewarded schools where pupils met the C grade targets, rather than excelled them. And with just 5 subjects, pupils often studied a narrow curriculum.

So from 2016, schools will publish pupils’ performance across 8 subjects, with maths and English double-weighted, and with reserved slots for EBacc subjects.

Achievement will not be measured by crossing an arbitrary threshold, but by pupils’ progress – whether they under- or over-perform, given a reasonable target.

That gives children a much broader curriculum, with a solid academic core. It’s a better test of schools’ ability to get each child to do their personal best. And it’s much fairer for those with a challenging intake.

Conclusion

We are midway through our reforms.

And we can see from countries like Germany that reform takes a decade. It’s an inherently long-term task.

But across these 3 big areas – the curriculum, exams, and accountability – our approach is consistent. We will accept nothing but the highest quality. We are learning from the best in the world. And we will combine more autonomy for schools with better accountability.

I encourage everyone here to spread that message.

Think about the OECD and its reports showing other countries racing ahead. That’s the challenge we face.

Think about Netflix and the sort of high-end, advanced, all-digital business they represent.

That’s what is possible with better education.

Thank you.

Below is the text of a speech made by the Education Minister, Elizabeth Truss, at the Policy Exchange in London on 29th January 2013.

Thank you very much Lucy (1). It is always a pleasure to attend an event at Policy Exchange, and I congratulate you on your typically rigorous and informative report on childcare.

You make a number of highly pertinent observations, not least in highlighting how much quality varies across the country and especially between richer and poorer areas. You are also absolutely right to stress that making it easier for parents – and mothers in particular – to be able to combine family with work matters enormously – to them as individuals, to families, and to the wider economy.

Many mothers want to stay at home and of course we are fully supportive of that. It is simply that my job is to help make sure that they have a genuine choice.

Much of the debate about childcare provision centres on cost. Of course this has a massive impact – many parents feel that childcare is so expensive that they cannot afford to work at all, let alone build a career.

I am determined to address this, and will have a lot more to say on the matter soon.

But today I want to outline our vision for early years childcare – and specifically to talk about quality, which is every bit as important as cost and which we ignore at our peril. Or, to quote the title of our paper published today, More Great Childcare. It is partly our response to Professor Cathy Nutbrown’s Foundations for Quality, which looked in detail at the qualifications regime for the early education and childcare workforce.

It also addresses some of the structural issues in the childcare system, because before making fresh demands on resources we need to make sure every penny parents and governments spend is used effectively.

This morning I visited the superb nursery at Durand Academy in Lambeth – a brilliant educational establishment that shows that the most effective institutions are every bit as life-changing as the worst ones. By driving up standards and focusing on quality, I want every child in the country to be given the sort of early education I saw this morning – and the best possible start in life.

The critical importance of early years

The Jesuits famously said “Give me the child for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the man.” As my colleague Andrea Leadsom has observed, science now suggests that the Jesuits may have been significantly overestimating. As people like Baroness Greenfield – Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Oxford – have made clear, how the brain develops – or fails to develop – in the first few years of a person’s life is utterly critical. It never makes sense to give up on anyone, but the fact is that much of what a child experiences well before the age of seven has an enduring effect on their life chances.

Research for the Foundation Years Action Group (2) by academics from UCL, the Institute of Education and Bristol University has laid this out in stark terms. At the age of 15 or 16, English pupils score 492 on the average PISA maths score, compared to 555 in Hong Kong, 562 in Singapore and 600 in Shanghai. Yet the gulf in attainment is evident way before that age. The gap between England and East Asia does not differ between the ages of nine or ten and 15 or 16. It’s already there by five years old.

If we look at international comparisons of how many children could complete early numeracy tasks when they started primary school, we see the same countries at the top of that table as we would expect to see when comparing the abilities of adults – countries like Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong and Singapore (3).

So when parents hand their child over to the care of a childminder or nursery they are not just entrusting them with their child’s physical safety; they are also entrusting their child’s brain. It is vital that staff have an adequate vocabulary and numerical ability.

The 21st Century will belong to those countries that win the global race for jobs and economic advantage. In order for every adult to fulfil their potential, they need to be properly equipped with essential skills from the very beginning of their lives.

A world-class childcare system 

All of which leads to an inescapable conclusion: childcare in this country must be world-class. Quality is first and foremost about people. No school is better than its teachers. I am grateful to Professor Cathy Nutbrown for all her work in assessing the overall landscape of qualifications for those working in early education and childcare.

She has said very clearly that too many people who work with young children are under-qualified and that the system for qualifications is confusing and inadequate, with over 400 different qualifications available.

I agree with her.

And given what we know about early years development, it is no longer acceptable that childcare professionals are not required to have a GCSE grade C or above in English and maths.

Professor Nutbrown says in her report,

If we are going to improve the quality of early childhood education and care, we cannot allow individuals to ‘slip through’ without their level 2 English and maths in place.

The international context underlines all this.

In France, at least 40 per cent of staff in crèches must hold a diploma, which demands a three-year, post-16 course.

In the Netherlands, certified childcare workers must train for three years post-18. Childcare professionals in Denmark need three to five years of vocational or tertiary education before they can work with children in their early years.

These and other countries recognise that looking after children is an extremely important job – and that attitude is reflected in higher levels of skills and pay. Contrastingly, Professor Nutbrown’s report raises serious concerns about the quality of training and qualifications in this country.

In her interim report, Professor Nutbrown wrote:

The ‘hair or care’ stereotype still exists for many considering a course in the early years; yet many other sectors have raised their expectations in relation to enrolment. It must be a cause for concern that early years courses are often the easiest to enrol on and the courses that the students with the poorest academic records are sometimes steered towards (4).

The interim report quotes Helen Perkins, Head of Early Years and Childhood Studies at Solihull College, who said:

We demand that students need a relevant level 2 qualification before they are able to handle animals independently on our animal care courses at Solihull College. Nobody demands the same level of qualification before you can be left alone with a baby (5).

Plainly this trend is both extremely worrying and insupportable.

I want a high-quality, highly qualified workforce here too. I want their work to be underpinned by effective regulation and inspection that targets support where it’s most needed – but I also want them to be trusted to use their professional judgement and experience.

We won’t get where we want to be overnight, but we are moving in the right direction on quality and qualifications. But we cannot overlook the fact that the commitment to make further improvements means giving providers the headroom to pay higher salaries.

I also want to be clearer to nurseries and parents about what these qualifications are and what they mean.

So we will introduce graduate-level Early Years Teachers specifically trained to teach young children. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project – known as the EPPE report – showed that children make much better progress in pre-school centres where trained teachers are present (6). We will also seek more crossover between primary school teachers into early years and early years teachers into primary.

There have been strong and persuasive calls to bring back the Nursery Nurse Diploma, and we will create Early Years Educators, backed by improved level 3 qualifications. This will offer strong practical experience and require candidates to have at least a C grade in English and maths GCSE.

In order to improve this we have to attract people into the profession. Too many make it through sheer dedication, finding it to be a terrific slog. I am convinced that this will be tough given existing wage levels.

Staff in this country earn about £6.60 an hour on average, only a little above the minimum wage. This speaks volumes for how much those working in the early years have hitherto been valued.

But there is further to go, and we have learned from other countries that deliver better value and better quality childcare. We have looked across Europe and beyond. The aim is not to replicate another country’s approach but to learn from and apply best practice.

I have been struck by the high status and trust afforded to childcare professionals in continental Europe. In particular, I am impressed by much of what happens in France.

The well-established system of écoles maternelles is being expanded to offer spaces for more two-year-olds, while a mixture of crèche and childminder provision is in high demand for younger children. Many French families put down their child’s name for a French crèche as soon as they discover they are pregnant. Nursery workers are paid around £16,000, compared to about £13,000 here. In return, candidates are expected to have higher qualifications. We are at the bottom of the league table of our near neighbours.

Inspired by examples like Durand Academy, I want far more schools to offer childcare and early years education. We will facilitate this by abolishing the requirement on schools to register separately with Ofsted if they want to provide for children under the age of three. And we will reform the burdensome statutory processes schools must follow if they want to take younger children.

I hope that some schools will want to run childminder agencies, which would allow well-qualified childminders to offer both group-based and home-based care and to employ their teaching expertise. This will have the added benefit of allowing children to engage with school early. Being able to take children to the same place will make life more convenient for many families too.

Greater flexibility for professionals

It is telling that I am often asked whether I would be able to look after a certain number of children. I think this line of thinking betrays an attitude that “anyone can do the job”. I don’t start from the premise that anyone can be an early educator. It is an extremely demanding job that requires great and specific expertise.

I am not trained to do the job. I am equally sure I would not be able to walk into a class of 30 fourteen-year-olds and teach them German.

My ministerial colleagues at the Department of Health don’t get asked if they would be willing to perform keyhole surgery.

Those at the MoD aren’t asked if they would fancy hopping on a helicopter and going into battle.

Although I suspect that Andrew Robathan and Mark Francois would be up for that.

Working in early education isn’t for everyone. Those who do it well are special – and they deserve our thanks. It is a professional career.

Other European countries have taken a different approach on ratios. They think that the quality of staff is the most important thing. Whereas in England nursery staff may look after no more than four two-year-olds, in France they can be responsible for eight – and there are no limits in Denmark, Germany or Sweden.

That is why we are encouraging nurseries to use their professional judgement and enjoy greater flexibility. Where there is an Early Years Educator leading a group of children, we plan to allow ratios for two-year-olds to rise from four children per adult to six children per adult. And for ones-and-under to rise from three children per adult to four children per adult.

We are not changing the ratios for three and four-year-olds but we would like to see more nurseries in the private and voluntary sector using the full allowance of 1:13 with a teacher to have traditional-style nursery classes. Many of our leading providers are successfully delivering this model, including Durand Academy.

We think teacher-led groups with structured activities are a good thing. Ofsted has made it clear to me that they do too and want to see evidence of well qualified staff engaging directly with children. Of course parents may demand other learning styles but I think it is important that parents have the choice of this model that works well.

We also want to see parents have the choice of more structured group care for their two year olds like the French crèche system. These groups would be led by qualified Early Years Educators. We know two is a crucial age where children are learning the structure of language and vocabulary.

We are hardwired to be inquisitive, to want to learn and to take pleasure from learning. Think about the joy on a toddler’s face when they take their first steps, or how proud a four-year-old is when they earnestly tell you what the French word for “yes” is.

I totally reject the idea that children in a nursery can either have an educational day or an enjoyable one. Ros Marshall of Kids Unlimited has proved that this is bunk. She does outstanding work, for example in encouraging children to learn how to count when they are playing musical instruments.

Far from killing any pleasure that a child might get out of learning, structure and clear guidelines provide reassurance and safety. Rather than crushing spontaneity and discovery, they offer an essential framework for precisely those things. This is fully compatible with the EYFS .

My insistence that children are well-educated from the very beginning of their lives isn’t just about getting ahead in the global race – crucial though that is. It is a recognition that children’s lives should be complete and fulfilled. This is not just about the economy – it is also about personal happiness.

We also want to see more options for home-based care.

We have seen a decrease in the number of childminders over recent years – this is, in part, because childminders have to be business owners as well as child carers. When setting up, this means registering with Ofsted, the local authority, finding training, marketing the service to parents and collecting fees. As well as the role of caring for and educating young children, there is a lot of paperwork, administration, chasing up parents for payments and jumping through hoops set by local authorities involved.

Some people want a simpler way to enter the profession. So we are setting up “one stop shops” called childminder agencies to do the practicalities.

This will mean someone interested in becoming a childminder can go to a local agency, have their premises checked out, receive training and be approved all by a single organisation which itself will be regulated by Ofsted. This agency will deal with the government funding, market services, place children and collect fees from parents. Similar organisations in France and the Netherlands have created a good entry route for childminders, meaning that there are many more childminders relative to population size than there are in Enlgand.

These measures coupled with the removal of hoops to jump through from local authorities to receive Government funding should see a revival in this important form of care.

This will be particularly important for parents in rural areas who have a lack of facilities nearby, for those who are working shifts or irregular hours (like MPs!) who are looking for flexible, home-based childcare. And what’s more, agencies will be able to offer cover if a childminder is on holiday or ill. And we have all been in those situations where childcare arrangements have fallen through at the last minute. Mine normally involves a phone call to my parents in Leeds.

We also want to give childminders more flexibility. At present the ratio of one child under the age of one per childminder means that twins are a no-no without special permission. The limit for under-fives is three children – which is fewer than many families have to cope with.

This gives rise to the situation I saw where two qualified childminders are looking after six children between them, where if they need a pint of milk one of them has to drag three children to the shop to comply with the rules.

In France a childminder can look after up to four children under five. In Denmark they can look after five. There are no ratios in Sweden.

We will bring our rules in line with France so that childminders can look after up to four under-fives of which no more than two are under one. This is of course a maximum not a requirement and we would expect childminders to do what they or their agency are comfortable with.

We will also give flexibility on changeovers.  This will help parents too. If one person is late picking up their child, another parent will not have to wait because the childminder isn’t allowed to look after two children even for a few minutes.

Rigorous and fair inspections

It is vital that the inspection and regulatory regime is rigorous, comprehensive, clearly understood and fair. It must focus solely on what matters and not distract providers from looking after children.

We are working with Ofsted to implement further improvements to the current regime including increasing the number of HMIs covering the early years and to concentrate inspection on those weaker providers that need the most attention.

Ofsted alone will be the arbiter of quality. At the moment, local authorities also check the quality of provision, which is both a waste of resources and creates extra barriers for new providers trying to set up. Although we fund three and four-year-old places at £2,200 per head which is enough to cover the costs to nurseries, not enough of this money is reaching the frontline.

Local authorities retain £160 million annually of the funding intended to deliver early education to three and four-year-olds, some of which is spent on duplicating work Ofsted is already doing. Ending this situation will mean that as much money as possible goes to the front line.

Our commitment to a fair regime is such that we have heeded calls from those who asked for a new route allowing paid-for re-inspection.

If a nursery that received a satisfactory rating has taken steps to reach good or outstanding, I want this to be recognised and updated swiftly.

Lifelong learning applies to the very young as well as the very old

Professionals should also be given the chance to think creatively about how they help children to learn. Better qualified staff will be better able to do that.

For some years now politicians have stressed the importance of “lifelong learning”. But the term tends to be used to remind us that a person’s education shouldn’t end when they leave school or university. I believe that learning should be genuinely lifelong – which means that it should start from the moment a child enters the world.

We know that the first few years of our life shape the development of our brains. The evidence is clear that qualified teachers are best placed to offer strong developmental learning. Therefore we need to increase the number of teachers involved with the early years.

This is all part of our efforts to increase the quality of teaching across the piece for all ages.

Conclusion

We will shortly publish the report by our commission on childcare, looking at ways to tackle the high costs for parents and to get better value for money. The status-quo is neither fair to providers nor allows enough money to reach the front line. I appreciate your patience in waiting to hear more about this.

Getting the funding right is a necessary condition of providing world-class childcare but it is not sufficient. It is not good enough to carry on with an unreformed system. A greater focus on quality and value for money matters enormously as well.

Some children enjoy more advantages than others, but all children are vulnerable. Of course parents want their child to have the very best start in life possible.

I want every child to spend their early years learning, exploring, enjoying and growing – and for them to arrive at primary school well-prepared and confident. By driving up standards right across early education, we can give parents the sense of security they crave and every child the care and attention they need.

Thank you very much indeed.

 

(notes to speech)

1 Lucy Lee, Head of Education at Policy Exchange.

2 Foundation Years Action Group, The vital importance of early development to later life outcomes, 15 November 2012.

3 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics.

4 Professor Cathy Nutbrown, Review of Early Education and Childcare Qualifications: Interim Report, March 2012, p.9.

5 Professor Cathy Nutbrown, Review of Early Education and Childcare Qualifications: Interim Report, March 2012, p.29.

6 Sylva, K. et al. (2004) Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Findings from the pre-school period. Department for Education and Skills. Research Brief RBX15-03.