When schools broke up for the summer holidays in July, the Brexit vote and David Cameron’s resignation were still fresh in the memory. Now, with a new prime minister, and new ministers with new ideas occupying every department, teachers and students have returned to a very different political landscape.

Whatever your view, one positive thing to come out of Brexit is a new - certainly lively and engaged - conversation regarding social mobility. Justine Greening’s appointment as education secretary was hailed by many as a positive thing for the most disadvantaged, not least because she is the first education secretary to have been educated at a mainstream comprehensive school. Of personal interest to me, it sits in the same borough as the one I attended. Mine was then, and still is, an excellent and truly all-abilities setting.

It seems strange, and I think disappointing, then, that along with this renewed focus on social mobility and inequality, the government has simultaneously returned to a seemingly incessant English fascination with grammar schools. Initial reaction to the floated plans for reintroducing a schooling system that has been out of general favour since the 70s has been overwhelmingly negative among teachers, academic researchers, many academy chains and trusts.

Social mobility

The reaction begs the question: is this where we should be focusing our energy if we are serious about improving social mobility? Is an entirely counter-evidential - therefore entirely ideological and somehow nostalgic - return to the debate healthy? Is it intellectually legitimate to claim the changes wouldn’t create a two-tier system?

Is it a good use of energy to get us into a thinking space where we accept that, when children are 10, based on a test for which some will and will not be tutored, we are sane to segregate out less than 20 per cent of the cohort, sending over 80 per cent elsewhere? Where is the legitimacy in claiming a system based on new selective schools would not entail a sense of rejection for those who don’t win a place? Or in the protestation - again, counter-evidentially - that grammar schools in fact improve social mobility?

I believe that we should instead be focusing on the systems and schools that are already in place, while celebrating and rewarding the achievements of outstanding schools that do a lot with little. Events such as the Pupil Premium Awards, for example, offer great opportunities to learn from best practice. One thing that you will notice that all of the nominated schools have in common is they pursue a culture of aspiration for all. They don’t write children off because of their background; instead, they concentrate on expanding their horizons. They build partnerships and have a whole-school pursuit of broad and balanced curriculum.

A selective system lives or dies on the basis of children being ranked, at whatever age, by a system of testing that, like all such systems, tells you the child can pass the test rather than what they are truly capable of, or how they will grow and develop either as learners or citizens. There is no credible evidence to suggest that this approach is the way to improve standards and quality of education (as recently pointed out by the Education Policy Institute). Selective education does not in any way either reflect, or equip, either the system or its learners to respond creatively to today’s - let alone the future’s - societal, economic, technological or employability pressures.

From the research I have read (which, sadly, the government’s commentaries continue to greet with “’tisn’t” as a firm response), it is clear that a return to selective education, whatever the claims in the current consultation, is backward-looking.

Unwelcome distraction

The biggest issue for me is that it is a distraction from what we should be doing to improve education for every child in England. One sadness, among many others when reading the DfE’s consultation paperwork, is that there is no mention of what a newly selective system would do, positively and in line with legal requirements, with children who have additional or special educational needs or disabilities. That it so easily makes these children seem invisible does not, I hope, make them so!

We should, surely, be supporting the schools we already have to work together, learn together and be outward-looking - using all the assets on offer, both within and beyond the classroom, within and beyond the formal curriculum. Bodies such as Ofsted agree that this is the best way forward.

I’m pleased to see this preferred approach is echoed by the new culture secretary, Karen Bradley. In her maiden speech as secretary of state, she reaffirmed the government’s commitment to reaching disadvantaged young people and in particular acknowledged that “people from disadvantaged backgrounds are poorly represented in the artistic professions”. She also announced a new education programme, called Cultural Citizens, which aims to “provide fun experiences that increase confidence and lead to permanent engagement”.

A New Direction, the organisation I chair, is responsible for delivering one of the pilots for this programme. We will be working with five secondary schools in Barking and Dagenham, building on their research indicating school is often the first or - as I have side before - the only place where children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are introduced to their right to engage in, and connect with, the arts and culture.

In partnership with the Barking and Dagenham Cultural Education Partnership, Creative Barking and Dagenham and Studio3Arts, the pilot will create arts opportunities for pupils across the five schools. Cultural Citizens Clubs will be set up in each, helping students to design a programme of cultural visits in which they and their peers will participate.

For many of the pupils involved, participating in this exciting programme may be the first time they have had the opportunity to engage so deeply with the arts and culture. Relating this to issues of social mobility, high-profile discussions in recent days around the Turner Prize shortlist, and the challenges it presents to the viewer and society, has seen experts in the field advocate strongly for the arts and culture in broadening pupils’ and schools’ horizons - offering opportunities for those otherwise living in difficult circumstances. The Cultural Citizens programme presents us all with exciting opportunities.

I hope the pilot’s effect on students’ outlooks and aspirations will be both positive and explicit enough to be marked and measured. We can then go on to build a model that can be applied not only in each English region’s pilot areas, but across the country. Such collaborative, forward-thinking projects, focused on truly enriching lives, surely present far more real and inclusive opportunities for our education system to enhance social mobility.

Professor Maggie Atkinson is chair of London cultural education agency A New Direction.