Gove opens a new front in his education revolution

GCSEs to be scrapped but will a two-tier system improve standards?

In its early days, the government was nicknamed "the breakneck coalition" for its relentless drive to transform education, health, welfare, justice, planning, policing - almost every arm of the state. Since then, most ministers have since struggled to maintain momentum, with one exception: Michael Gove. The Education Secretary's quiet revolution means that nearly half of all secondary schools in England are academies, the biggest transformation of the system since the 1960s. Now, with local authorities and teaching unions in retreat, Gove has opened a new front in his war on the status quo.

The Daily Mail has the news that GCSEs will be scrapped in favour of O-level style exams, and that the National Curriculum will be abolished. Those due to start their GCSE courses in September 2013 will be the last to do so. From 2014, the Mail reports, "pupils will begin studying for ‘explicitly harder’ exams in English, maths, physics, chemistry and biology". Less academic pupils will sit "more straightforward" exams akin to the old CSE. In Gove's view, the current system has failed pupils as teachers have encouraged them to take subjects such as food nutrition in a bid to meet the requirement for all to obtain at least five GCSES graded A* to C (a target that will now be scrapped).

So, what to make of it all? The Mail has predictably welcomed the move, with an editorial declaring that "dumbed-down GCSEs" will be replaced with "rigorous O-levels". But others are more sceptical, rightly questioning whether the creation of a two-tier system will improve standards. The old grammar school system divided pupils into winners and losers at 11, the new system will do so at 14. Moreover, Gove's determination to create a more "rigorous" education system is seemingly contradicted by his plan to tear up the National Curriculum. If schools are free to choose what they teach, how will he ensure a minimum standard?

For now, these questions remain unanswered. In response to the Mail's scoop, the Department for Education has simply remarked: "We do not comment on leaks." What is clear is that Gove has yet again managed to set the terms of debate. As Fiona Millar remarked this morning, "Labour must stop being a commentator on Gove policies and come up with some bold clear alternatives that look to the future not the past."

Finally, one might also note that there was no mention of scrapping GCSEs in the Conservative manifesto. The government's desire to pursue policies for which "no one voted" (in the words of Rowan Williams) is well-established but as Andrew Lansley discovered, the lack of a mandate can prove costly. Given recent experience, the coalition would be advised to proceed cautiously.

Pupils wait for school buses in the playground at the West London Free School. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Manchester Gorton?

Will Labour lose in Manchester Gorton?

The death of Gerald Kaufman will trigger a by-election in his Manchester Gorton seat, which has been Labour-held since 1935.

Coming so soon after the disappointing results in Copeland – where the seat was lost to the Tories – and Stoke – where the party lost vote share – some overly excitable commentators are talking up the possibility of an upset in the Manchester seat.

But Gorton is very different to Stoke-on-Trent and to Copeland. The Labour lead is 56 points, compared to 16.5 points in Stoke-on-Trent and 6.5 points in Copeland. (As I’ve written before and will doubtless write again, it’s much more instructive to talk about vote share rather than vote numbers in British elections. Most of the country tends to vote in the same way even if they vote at different volumes.)

That 47 per cent of the seat's residents come from a non-white background and that the Labour party holds every council seat in the constituency only adds to the party's strong position here. 

But that doesn’t mean that there is no interest to be had in the contest at all. That the seat voted heavily to remain in the European Union – around 65 per cent according to Chris Hanretty’s estimates – will provide a glimmer of hope to the Liberal Democrats that they can finish a strong second, as they did consistently from 1992 to 2010, before slumping to fifth in 2015.

How they do in second place will inform how jittery Labour MPs with smaller majorities and a history of Liberal Democrat activity are about Labour’s embrace of Brexit.

They also have a narrow chance of becoming competitive should Labour’s selection turn acrimonious. The seat has been in special measures since 2004, which means the selection will be run by the party’s national executive committee, though several local candidates are tipped to run, with Afzal Khan,  a local MEP, and Julie Reid, a local councillor, both expected to run for the vacant seats.

It’s highly unlikely but if the selection occurs in a way that irritates the local party or provokes serious local in-fighting, you can just about see how the Liberal Democrats give everyone a surprise. But it’s about as likely as the United States men landing on Mars any time soon – plausible, but far-fetched. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.