It is so tedious to have the same debate year after year(after year after year....). The only interesting fact is that the same complaints (about the inadequacies of the young in relation to employment) can be found 150 years ago - and before.

Perhaps the one thing that can be agreed upon is that 25 years of centralization and curriculum determination by mostly third-rate politicians and apparatchiks (and if Gove is a guideline, we're probably into fifth rate) has done nothing to solve any problems - real or imaginary.

Unfortunately - the one thing that is certain is that it is unlikely that any of the third to fifth raters will get off the pot (even though Estelle Morris - bless her - did, which gives her points) - they will need a good kicking to help them on their way.

What is actually happening is difficult to untangle, and it would be pointless to even try in a brief comment. One of the main problems is that the third-to-fifth raters have, as mentioned, invested so much time in there own pathetic images (talking tough, 'driving' standards up etc. etc.) that actuality - particularly the actuality of children and teenagers - has hardly had a look in. Any education reform needs to have a valid and reliable measure along side it and a degree of logical analysis in order to make a rational assessment of its efficacy.

That should have been the role of OFSTED, but this failed body has, from the start, been a political poodle/job creation scheme , driven by ideology and headed by poseurs. There has thus never been any proper measurement of the functioning of the system. Pupil progress has been conflated with school success and the assessment of national performance has always been subject to political spin. SATS and other forms of assessment have never been satisfactorily valid or reliable in the strict sense of the terms, and OFSTED is now headed by a guy who doesn't even understand the basic scientific principle of separating relevant from non-relevant variables in a process of analysis, and like his masters, invests much in simplistic 'toughness' pronouncements which tend to spill from that class of person properly labelled 'twat'. Being one is not a great quality in leadership terms.

What can be said with a fair degree of certainty is :

1. School performance has never been as bad as those with an axe to grind would pretend.

2. School improvement has never been as good as those with an axe to grind would pretend.

3. Schools are not suited to providing job-ready packages of students - nor should they be. They should provide an education which, amongst other things, is relevant to employment).

4. Issues beyond school are the major influences on pupil achievement overall.

5. Following on from that, government's role is not to piddle around with things in which they have no competence (detailed curriculum design) and instead focus on reducing poverty and inequality (but from third to fifth raters ... ??)

6. The changes in the exam-taking population and society makes comparisons over time fraught with difficulty. Something like 20% attained 5 GCEs in the good old days.

7. The change in the employment structure and consequent skill demands renders the analysis of applicants over time equally difficult.

8. The best overall national performance is achieved in more equal societies with high levels of social and educational coherence : i.e forget grammar schools and private school models - true comprehensive education is the model for advanced societies (the mythologies about the other institutions are perpetuated purely as props to privilege - the aspect of British society that most holds it back).

9. The main problem in the economy is demand, not supply. Pace Blair, education, education and yet more education will not solve the ills of society (even if a healthy society needs a healthy education system), nor should it be blamed for the same. Beware failed politicians diverting attention towards scapegoats.

So, the CBI is now calling for the scrapping of GCSEs? How strange that a few years ago when Mike Tomlinson proposed replacing them (and A levels) with a new qualification, the CBI and Institute of Directors were vehemently opposed to the idea, stating that employers wouldn't know what the new qualifications stood for, instead supporting the "Gold Standard" of GCSEs and A levels.

The Tomlinson 14-19 Diploma, as originally proposed, would be designed by industry Sector Skills Councils (organisations run by employers to improve workplace skills) and contain "Functional Maths" and "Functional English", together with subject specific knowledge and a project. They would be offered across both Academic and Vocational disciplines, thus ensuring true parity for the first time.

However, the proposals were considered too radical for Labour who introduced a watered down version in a handful of subject areas, for Vocational subjects only - the Academic version never got off the ground. They also confused matters by introducing the "General GCSE Diploma" - a virtual qualification consisting of 5 GCSEs at grades A*-C including English and Maths.

The proposals are also presumably too radical for the current government, who want to preserve GCSEs (for the time being) albeit with grade boundaries adjusted to ensure roughly similar proportions of pupils get each grade from year to year, with the bulk of assessment restricted to end-of-course exams (I assume the definition includes practicals held under examination conditions).

It's currently unclear what difference there would be between Gove's "new" GCSEs and the speculative return of "O" levels.

Unfortunately, if a child can't spell, it is more the fault of the parent than any teacher or curriculum. If your child gets home and can't spell, then they are not applying themselves in school, that's the parent's fault.
My school was terrible to be honest, a lot of people left ill educated, not that it was inevitable, though. I didn't, however. I wouldn't dare.
A teacher or school can only force education upon a student to a certain degree, if a child goes in to school unwilling then they will not learn despite how good the teaching may be. Only a parent can change this.

Up until the early noughties the highest number of company directors were ex-grammar school girls and boys. It may still be so.
Strange, former Grammar school students never look up, always down. Make wonderful servants.
Yes, Mr Hudson. Yes, sir, Yes Governor. Yes, they learn their manners. And their place.
Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Brown - not bad.
Churchill and Home - underachievers at school and university. Excellent!
Blair, Cameron, Osborne, need we go on ... never passed the 11 Plus. Outstanding!

Swot