Gove's handling of exam reform shows his contempt for devolution
The Education Secretary has offered no meaningful consultation to his counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland.
By Owen Smith Published 17 September 2012 15:17
"Education is all about building bridges", according to the US author and journalist, Ralph Ellison. By contrast, the English Education Secretary, a former journalist himself, appears keener to burn, rather than build, educational bridges across Britain. The announcement last week that the Education Minister in Wales had requested a re-grade of Welsh pupils’ English GCSEs prompted an incendiary response from Michael Gove, who accused his Celtic counterpart of "political interference" in the exam system and disgracefully suggested that English employers might reasonably disregard or devalue the qualifications of Welsh job applicants as a consequence.
The charge that others are politicising the education system is, coming from Gove, risible. The GCSE saga, which began with his mid-summer leak to the Daily Mail on the return of "O-level style" exams, and which culminates later today with an announcement already trailed through the pages of the Mail's Sunday sister, has been political from start to finish. The leaks, the pressure on exam boards to revise grade thresholds and, worst of all, Gove’s refusal to do the right thing by those pupils disadvantaged by the subsequent downgrading and, like Welsh Education Minister Leighton Andrews, order a re-grade: all have been political in their method and motive.
How could Gove ask for a regrade, when to acknowledge the unfairness would undermine his political narrative of falling standards, grade inflation and the imperative for reform? Labour accept that reform is needed and we will judge his prescriptions when they evolve from press copy to policy proposal, but it cannot be right for him to play politics with pupils’ futures – especially those sat at the boundary of the C/D grades, whose next steps in life may turn on a percentage point or two. And, if the press reports are correct, it cannot be right either to revert to a 1980s style, two-tier system - a system that failed so many in the past.
Though the most important aspect of this shambles is the impact on the students involved, the row is notable for the approach to devolution that it exposes in the modern Tory party. Never convincingly enthusiastic about devolution, which emerged in the aftermath of the 1997 election and the Tories’ eclipse in Wales and Scotland, Conservative attitudes towards the settlement appear to be hardening once more.
The Prime Minister’s electoral appeal for a "Respect Agenda" between respective administrations now seems long forgotten, as Wales and Scotland (less so admittedly, now the prospect of a referendum looms closer) are mined by Tory ministers for selective statistics and cheap-shot comparisons that might deflect criticism from their own inglorious records. The most glaring example of this has been the persistent recourse of the Prime Minister to such selective statistics on the funding of the Welsh NHS, as a stock response to criticism of his dismantling of the service in England. The reality, as the National Audit Office recently recorded, is that spending per person in Wales exceeds that in England (£1,900 v. £2,017pa). But this detail is lost as respect gives way to political expediency.
The GCSE affair has raised this disrespect agenda to a whole new level. The leaks in the summer came totally out of the blue for ministers in Wales and Northern Ireland who, though education is devolved, have a shared responsibility for the GCSE qualifications - their design, management and maintenance. However, there was scarely a phone-call and certainly no meaningful consultation between Gove and his Welsh or Northern Irish equivalents.
What does it tell us that a Scottish Tory, ensconced in a London Department whose writ does not run in Cardiff or Belfast or Edinburgh, should show so little respect for the opinions or actions of the devolved administrations? Two things: first, that the Conservatives have abandoned all pretence of being a "One Nation" party; and, second, that short-term political advantage for a floundering Tory party is increasingly set to trump good government in the national interest.
Labour, the party of devolution, remains determined to act in the national interest, of each of the nations and regions of the UK and of Great Britain as a whole. Developing and deepening democracy in the UK requires that devolution is respected when different administrations, whatever their political stripe, take different decisions that they believe to be in the best interests of the people they serve. It also requires closer collaboration than we see at present between the different administrations, especially in areas of public services where there is overlap, mutual interest or reliance, shared markets, resources or challenges. Funding for social care or higher education are two such areas where collaborative reform and mutually agreed frameworks might afford significant benefits over the discrete solutions that apply at present.
The actions of Gove, undermining collaboration and fuelling pressure for unilateral reform of exams at 16, runs counter to such logic and forces Welsh Ministers to contemplate the break-up of the three-nation system. In Wales, Leighton Andrews has openly conceded such a scenario may now be "almost inevitable".
Faced with these concerns, Gove has two options. The first, responsible and respectful, would be to reach out to his counterparts and to work, collaboratively, towards solutions that might benefit pupils in both Wales and England. Of course, Wales might still decide in future, based on evidence and ambition, that a unilateral solution is preferable, despite risks of transferability and novelty, but they would do so out of choice rather than in response to arrogant force majeure. The second is to carry on as before, ignoring Welsh concerns, disrespecting different decisions on funding or priorities, and seeing devolution as just a means to score cheap points at Westminster. On the strength of this week’s performance, I don’t hold out much hope that Gove will pursue the tougher, former route, and that his crass actions will continue to strain the bonds that hold Britain together.
Owen Smith is shadow welsh secretary and Labour MP for Pontypridd.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















17 comments
This article by Owen Smith is remarkable! sad stupid and beyond belief!
Bejamin Rae- Gove is a Scot making decisions on English matters only, whereas he is allowed no say about Scottish matters.
Aled- Any idea where the English Parliament is? I'd love to know!
Geriant- being ticked off with stupid remarks by you doesn't make me a tory any more than your stupid remarks make you an Englishman!
There is a massive problem with the examination and testing regimes that has been highlighted by this present debacle.
It is hardly a piece of recondite knowledge that two key features of a worthwhile test are validity (testing what is intended - which implies a degree of clarity) and reliability (that the result of the testing is accurately repeatable).
Leaving validity asid, it is clear that altering grade boundaries within a year vitiates any sense of reliability, creating what is little better than a lottery of grade allocation within a year-group amongst a cohort of students who will implicitly be compared with each other.
Of course, examinations will - and must - change over time, but revisions and recalibrations have to be carefully thought through, and be explicit and transparent.
None of these caveats apply to the present situation - the latest pile of excrement in the quarter-century of political dabbling in education by less than adequate intellects who, ironically, babble on about 'academic rigour'.
The political meddling supports a whole industry of damage to pupils and state education as a whole. Beyond the obvious suspects - the Goves and Adonises who exploit the political platform to peddle pet ideas of little substance - lie the chatterati of the politically friendly media who are complicit in the promulgation of silly ideas (when the NS has an editorial in praise of Adonis and wish-fulfilment statistics, following a week in which the hero's book is reviewed by a fawning friend of similarly limited knowledge, the closed circle of self-abuse is beyond satire).
Then, there are the apparatchiks within quangos and, sometimes, schools who implement politically popular ideas. Which brings us to the GCSE grading train wreck. The resistance of OFQAL to a re-grading exercise had nothing to do with standards. It was the hard nose approach to cock-up (cf Hillsborough) - admit nothing, even if that vitiates your fundamental role of public protection.
The minimum that might have been expected is that a year's cohort of students could expect the same framework to be applied across the board. That examinations are not graded by whim would seem a fundamental requirement.
That whims dictate what happens to pupils is the major problem with the system as a whole.
I see the Tories are out in force on the comment section tonight.
It's more likely Gove has contempt for anyone who does not share his extreme right wing nonsense views. That just happens to include nearly everyone who doesn't live in England
and a fair few who do. The attempt to revamp education in England and Wales has more to do with rowing back a percieved liberal bias in state education than it does about making anything better
A minister responsible only for the English education system ought to be member of an English parliament, not a UK one.
I agree entirely.Seems that Owen Smith does too or he would not have used the term.
Perhaps he should join the Campaign for an English Parliament(CEP)?
So did Leighton Andrews consult Gove when he ordered a re-mark in Wales and subverted the autonomy of the exam board there? I don't think so. This is sadly too partisan to be taken seriously.
The difference in Wales is that the Minister for Education in Wales is the exams regulator. It was in that capacity that Leighton Andrews took his decision.
Is having to resign from government now simply the political equivalent of a 'gap year'?
If the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies want to do something else to assess the pupils in their schools they've got all the powers they want and need to set up their own examination boards.
This is one of the most tragically partisan and unthinking posts I've ever seen on the New Statesman website.
Michael Gove's remit is for education in England and that alone. It's no more legitimate for those in charge of the Welsh education system to have a say in this consultation than it is for every school in Scotland that happens to teach one or two A-levels instead of (Advanced) Highers.
On regrading, Michael Gove has done absolutely the correct thing. The winter-diet was marked over-generously. The exam boards think the results for the summer were about right based on their well-established approaches. To expect Michael Gove to be bounced into having papers regraded by a devolved minister is utter madness. Also the idea that "one or two points could make all the difference" is an appalling argument. That's *always* the case, irrespective of how well/badly or generously/harshly the exam paper has been marked.
If Labour were really the party of devolution, they'd respect Michael Gove for letting the devolved administrations do their own thing. If this were a Labour government and the Welsh government had not already sought a regrade, you can be sure Ed Balls would have instructed them to do it by direct diktat from the Politburo.
All governments alter and mix so-called new ideas with past best-thing-since-sliced-bread education systems. But they usually fail as history has shown us well. What politicians do not comprehend is that to excel in future times education has to driven by creative interest. Build our education system around this concept and we would lead the world. But again it also has to be said that politicians do not know the difference between perceived higher intelligence and higher creative thinking. The two are totally different as the history of S&T has shown us throughout millennium. In this respect the best educated minds are not the best creative minds. Indeed, many of the world's greatest technological inventions that have changed our modern world were not at the fundamental level conceived in our universities or advanced corporate centres of R&D, but in the confines of a special individual's private environment, far, far remote from the perceived environments of educational excellence.
Indeed Kilby, Baird, Fleming, Berners-Lee, Whittle and Edison to name only a few conceived their ideas out of personal interest and where no employer or institution had any bearing on their thoughts at the fundamental thought level. In the case of Kilby who invented the 'chip' in his own spare time and when he initially showed his employer Texas Instruments his prototype, they simply did not want to know. Now the 'chip' underpins a global industry turning over around $2 trillion a year and where probably it is the greatest technological wealth creator of all time.
Therefore we have to come away from the education thinking that has not worked in the past, will not work in the future and move towards creative interest-driven education. For this thinking will initiate a nation of excellors, not the unfit-for-purpose failures of the past. This goes doubly sure in industry where it is creative thinking that is vitally needed to conceive the next global level of technological industries. Indeed we would be far better off economically in the future if creativity and innovation were driving our education system and not the basics that have failed the nation in the past. Will politicians ever listen? I very much doubt it and where in another 10-years time they will be moving the deck chairs around the Titanic again to no avail. And with that the sheer waste of locked-in talent that is totally unoptimized by the present and prevailing educational systems that have been spawned since after WW2 and have so badly failed the nation and the people of this country. Time for great change therefore, but the right change.
For it is time that those looking in at the problem were given a seat at the table and where they can see the wood for the trees. Will Whitehall allow this? I fear not as they are seen as the so-called elite of our society and have all the answers. But history of course says something totally different and where we are today predominantly because they have always got it so terribly wrong. Oxbridge is not therefore where the great thinking comes from to create multi-trillion technological industries but second division universities usually, just like the one that Kilby went too and could not get into MIT (voted recently the top university in the world). It is a fallacy therefore that only Oxbridge can provide our nation with a future, but that is exactly what Whitehall have thought for decades and where it has got us nowhere but in a downward spiral of economic decline. Time has come therefore I feel to come out of this misconception and to consider highly creativity people over the perceived higher intelligent people that pervades our current society.
Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
United Kingdom - Switzerland
Owen Smith complains that The English Education Secetary takes no heed of what his counterpart in Wales wishes to do. Why should The English Education Secretary worry about education in Wales?Is not education a devolved matter?That's how devolution works you see,not just by buying votes for Labour.It means you have a budget and you spend it and make your own rules.In England we used to call it freedom.
By the way,Owen,you refer to the "Nations and regions "-I know the Nations of NI,Wales,Scotland and England but I cannot think what you mean by "regions".Can you or indeed anyone enlighten me?
Co-eds?
Clubbable Ladettes
That is because the man is an arrogant prat.
This is what happens when people who haven't got a clue about teaching or education interfere with it. This proposal is marked with the usual Tory disregard for evidence in favour of pushing for what is believed to be right in the minds of a handful of minsiters trying to curry favour with an equally ill informed public. There are very few, if any, subjects where a single exam helps a student to learn. That is, learning is about a lot more than just passing an exam.
As if changing the metre stick ever made anyone taller. Owen smith shouldn't take Gove's refusal to listen or consult as a particular snub for the devolved nations; he seldom listens to anyone except his 'yes men'. Perhaps the 2015 electorate will have to send him a message he cannot ignore.
And there's Laws, topping up his fortune.