Is Burnham Doing Enough on Education?

When Andy Burnham launched his bid to replace Keir Starmer, he stated that education was in need of a “complete rethink”. Just over a week into his premiership, Burnham announced his first education reform: the introduction of new technical routes for students from the age of 14, aiming to challenge the traditional perspective that academic skills and university degrees are superior to technical or vocational routes. 

But the recent release of this year’s GCSE and A-Level results data brings into question whether Burnham’s reforms are enough of a ‘rethink’. The results revealed a growing attainment gap between the wealthiest and poorest areas of the UK. Almost a third (31.5%) of students in the South East achieved As and A*s in their A-Levels, compared with under a quarter (22.9%) in the North East. This pattern of inequality can also be seen in previous years' data, highlighting the ‘disadvantage gap’, which is the attainment gap between children who have been on free school meals in the last 6 years and those who have not. In 2024, the Average Point Score gap between disadvantaged students and non-disadvantaged students in terms of A-Level results was 4.9pts, and 3.4 for GCSE. This data, in combination with the data showing the consistently higher grades of private schools, clearly shows significant class inequalities in educational outcomes, and no evidence of improvement. 

This calls into question the impact of Burnham’s new policy on technical qualifications. The idea is not a bad one, aiming to tackle a very prevalent issue in terms of youth unemployment in the UK. However, exam results highlight that the current education system disproportionately benefits middle-class students in the wealthiest areas. The addition of new qualifications would not challenge this, as the structure of the system remains the same. This means that, in the same way children from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to succeed in traditional qualifications as a result of the education system, they are also more likely to succeed and benefit from Burnham’s new technical qualifications, continuing inequalities. Therefore, what is needed is much more radical reform to the structure of the education system as a whole to enable Burnham’s new policy to benefit all children, no matter where they live or how well off their parents are.

This is not just a Burnham-specific critique. For years, politicians from multiple parties have been following the same pattern of accepting the education system set up by Thatcher in the 1980s. Politicians since have brought in fresh policy, like Sure Start and academisation under New Labour, and free schools under the Coalition, but this is only tinkering around the edges. Regional inequality continues due to the system itself. Burnham is falling into this trap rather than examining the problem with the Thatcherite system and how it is built to disproportionately benefit middle-class children.

So what exactly needs reforming? Thatcher believed in the marketisation of education, arguing that if schools competed for students and therefore funding, they would continue to raise standards and improve efficiency. This manifested itself in the 1988 Education Reform Act, which introduced league tables, parental choice through open enrolment, formula funding and the National Curriculum, as well as other legislation in later years, including the introduction of Ofsted in 1992.

Research consistently shows how formula funding and parental choice disproportionately benefits children from middle-class backgrounds in wealthier areas across the country. Formula funding enables oversubscribed schools to expand and benefit from extensive resources, but at the same time, leads to other schools severely lacking funding and entering a ‘spiral of decline’. This research also shows wealthier parents are more likely to avoid these schools - often having more time or motivation to understand league tables and what is best for their child - or oversubscribed schools have been found more likely to choose children from wealthier backgrounds. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds or in poorer areas of the country have therefore been found to be much more likely to attend these undersubscribed, underfunded ‘sink schools’, and thus are experiencing a lower quality of education.  

It should be no surprise there is a regional attainment gap: the structure of the education system means children from disadvantaged backgrounds are set up to fail. And without policies to reform this outdated, Thatcherite system, this gap will not shrink. Burnham’s reforms and a shift to technical qualifications would be operating within a system where disadvantaged students will not reap the benefits, as they are more likely to be in underfunded schools where they will not have the opportunity to reach their full potential, whether this be through new technical qualifications or traditional academic routes. 

Burnham claims to want to do politics differently, stating when he became Prime Minister that moment would be a ‘circuit breaker’ and the beginning of the introduction of a ‘new political model’. This attitude must be applied to education policy, and there is no better time or politician to emphasise this. Burnham consistently emphasises the need to tackle regional inequality and has done so throughout his extensive political career. He is now the leader of the party of the working class, commanding a large majority in parliament. Now is the time to push for radical, structural reform, and Burnham is the politician to do it. It is only then that changes such as supporting more technical qualifications can truly be effective in helping all students from all backgrounds reach their potential.