My critics think speaking fluently is vital for fee-paying pupils, but not for anyone else. Here’s why I reject that | Lucy Powell

Private schools don’t leave confident communication to chance. They teach it. Debating, public speaking, presentations, interview preparation. It’s all part of the deal. And parents paying the fees would soon have something to say if it wasn’t. They know that being able to speak up, make your case and hold your own can open doors. I want that for every young person, wherever they grow up and whichever school they go to.

This matters now more than ever. Young people are more connected than they’ve ever been, yet too many feel isolated and unheard. Social media is transforming their friendships and relationships. Artificial intelligence is changing the world they will work in. And in an age dominated by screens and algorithms, the human ability to connect, communicate and make yourself heard has never been more important. But the ability to find your voice should never depend on your parents’ income or the school you attend.

Spoken communication is not a soft skill or a bolt on. That is why we are strengthening oracy across the curriculum, from primary to post-16, in all types of lessons and subjects. Being good or not good at these skills affects whether a young person can get ahead. Yet critics have called our proposals a sign of “dumbing down” and a departure from high standards. This is hypocrisy. Support for developing these skills has stretched across political divides for years. It’s what we want, but also the wish of Conservatives, such as ex schools minister Nick Gibb and former culture minister Lucy Frazer.

I do not accept a two-tier system where confident communication is seen as essential for children whose parents can afford school fees, but optional for everyone else.

Raising standards means giving children knowledge, and the confidence to use it, hold their own, make their case, seize opportunities and succeed in work and life. And the evidence supports this. The Education Endowment Foundation identifies oral language approaches as among the most effective interventions available, with particularly strong benefits for disadvantaged pupils, delivering six months’ worth of additional progress in primary school and five months in secondary school.

Earlier this week, author Michael Rosen welcomed a rebalancing towards speaking as a key component of how we use language, calling it “a great bridge between the mind and the page”, and the basis of our thinking.

And former general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, Geoff Barton, now chair of the Oracy Education Commission, pointed to high-performing systems in Japan, Singapore and the Netherlands, where pupils in maths, for example, are expected to explain their reasoning, listen to others and defend their approach. Far from lowering standards, he said it makes them better mathematicians.

Employers understand this too. When they talk about work readiness, they mean being able to articulate yourself, work with others, respond to feedback and deal confidently with customers and clients. A recent Chartered Management Institute survey found managers concerned about gaps in workplace readiness, specifically highlighting gaps in communication skills.

The evidence has not changed, the politics has. Because this was never really about standards. It was about who gets the chance to succeed. And if we’re serious about social mobility, raising standards and tackling the fact that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, we cannot pretend that the ability to communicate, persuade, present ideas and work with others does not matter.

In a fast-changing world, every young person deserves the confidence to speak up, the skills to be heard and the power to shape their own future.

• Lucy Powell is education secretary and deputy leader of the Labour party