Gove’s “English baccalaureate” is a fig leaf for inaction

Rather than attempt to reform England’s overcomplicated exam system, Gove’s plan offers more of the

Michael Gove yesterday announced plans to introduce an English baccalaureate -- a certificate awarded to pupils who pass five or more GCSEs at grade C or above, including English, maths, a science, a foreign language and one of the humanities. The intention is to recognise and reward students who take a broad range of subjects and stem the exodus from old popular subjects, such as foreign languages and history.

While the aim is noble, the means are deeply flawed. An English baccalaureate won't solve the problem of grade inflation, nor will it simplify England's cumbersome and overcomplicated exam system. A baccalaureate is a fudge and little more than a fig leaf for inaction.

An "English bac" won't stretch bright pupils any further. High achievers are already encouraged to take languages and humanities anyway, as universities prefer these qualifications. Employers and universities will still be left with a glut of excellent grades to sift through. Students will not learn anything extra or more challenging -- all they will receive is another certificate.

Nor will the "English bac" make the oft-criticised vocational subjects any more respectable among universities and employers. There is absolutely no reason why vocational qualifications in ICT, engineering, or even the much-maligned media studies should not be rigorous and useful. An English baccalaureate rewards pupils who steer clear of such subjects, undermining the diploma system even further.

As it is, secondary education in England today is a barely coherent mishmash, with GCSEs and A-levels mixed in with BTecs and diplomas. Ostensibly, each qualification is the equivalent of the other; in reality, there's a hierarchy. Top schools and middle-class parents encourage students to take only well-regarded GCSEs and A-levels, and to leave BTecs and diplomas well alone.

The students at bog-standard comps, meanwhile, are lumbered with worthless qualifications that universities don't want and that employers don't need, as schools prop up their League ranking by shepherding students into less challenging subjects. The last thing the system needs is another tier of qualifications, complicating it further.

Rather than reforming, Gove is tinkering. The English baccalaureate will change nothing. Gove is continuing Labour's long-term education policy of ignoring calls to integrate secondary education properly in England.

In 2004, after two years' work, the Tomlinson report was released. It called for comprehensive reform of secondary education and the introduction of an integrated diploma system that would allow academic and vocational elements under the same, overarching system. The report was completely ignored by the Labour government. Instead, the English secondary education system was left as a complete Horlicks.

If Gove is serious about reforming education, he should start by sorting out the qualifications on offer, making the system comprehensive and understandable, and removing the innuendo that dictates which subjects are respectable and which aren't. Gove calls his proposals "formidable reform", but an English baccalaureate is just more insipid tinkering at the edges.

Getty
Show Hide image

By refusing to stand down, Jeremy Corbyn has betrayed the British working classes

The most successful Labour politicians of the last decades brought to politics not only a burning desire to improve the lot of the working classes but also an understanding of how free market economies work.

Jeremy Corbyn has defended his refusal to resign the leadership of the Labour Party on the grounds that to do so would be betraying all his supporters in the country at large. But by staying on as leader of the party and hence dooming it to heavy defeat in the next general election he would be betraying the interests of the working classes this country. More years of Tory rule means more years of austerity, further cuts in public services, and perpetuation of the gross inequality of incomes. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Seema Malhotra, made the same point when she told Newsnight that “We have an unelectable leader, and if we lose elections then the price of our failure is paid by the working people of this country and their families who do not have a government to stand up for them.”

Of course, in different ways, many leading figures in the Labour movement, particularly in the trade unions, have betrayed the interests of the working classes for several decades. For example, in contrast with their union counterparts in the Scandinavian countries who pressurised governments to help move workers out of declining industries into expanding sectors of the economy, many British trade union leaders adopted the opposite policy. More generally, the trade unions have played a big part in the election of Labour party leaders, like Corbyn, who were unlikely to win a parliamentary election, thereby perpetuating the rule of Tory governments dedicated to promoting the interests of the richer sections of society.

And worse still, even in opposition Corbyn failed to protect the interests of the working classes. He did this by his abysmal failure to understand the significance of Tory economic policies. For example, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had finished presenting the last budget, in which taxes were reduced for the rich at the expense of public services that benefit everybody, especially the poor, the best John McConnell could do – presumably in agreement with Corbyn – was to stand up and mock the Chancellor for having failed to fulfill his party’s old promise to balance the budget by this year! Obviously neither he nor Corbyn understood that had the government done so the effects on working class standards of living would have been even worse. Neither of them seems to have learnt that the object of fiscal policy is to balance the economy, not the budget.

Instead, they have gone along with Tory myth about the importance of not leaving future generations with the burden of debt. They have never asked “To whom would future generations owe this debt?” To their dead ancestors? To Martians? When Cameron and his accomplices banged on about how important it was to cut public expenditures because the average household in Britain owed about £3,000, they never pointed out that this meant that the average household in Britain was a creditor to the tune of about the same amount (after allowing for net overseas lending). Instead they went along with all this balanced budget nonsense. They did not understand that balancing the budget was just the excuse needed to justify the prime objective of the Tory Party, namely to reduce public expenditures in order to be able to reduce taxes on the rich. For Corbyn and his allies to go along with an overriding objective of balancing the budget is breathtaking economic illiteracy. And the working classes have paid the price.

One left-wing member of the panel on Question Time last week complained that the interests of the working classes were ignored by “the elite”. But it is members of the elite who have been most successful in promoting the interests of the working classes. The most successful pro-working class governments since the war have all been led mainly by politicians who would be castigated for being part of the elite, such as Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Crosland, Barbara Castle, Richard Crossman, Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey, Tony Blair, and many others too numerous to list. They brought to politics not only a burning desire to improve the lot of the working classes (from which some of them, like me, had emerged) and reduce inequality in society but also an understanding of how free market economies work and how to deal with its deficiencies. This happens to be more effective than ignorant rhetoric that can only stroke the egos and satisfy the vanity of demagogues

People of stature like those I have singled out above seem to be much more rare in politics these days. But there is surely no need to go to other extreme and persist with leaders like Jeremy Corbyn, a certain election loser, however pure his motives and principled his ambitions.

Wilfred Beckerman is an Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and was, for several years in the 1970s, the economics correspondent for the New Statesman