Michael Gove must stop fighting "The Blob" and listen to the education experts

The Education Secretary has fallen for his own hype.

As the old saying goes, there is only one thing more useful in politics than having the right friends. That’s having the right enemies.

The education secretary, Michael Gove, has been highly skilled in defining his school reforms against what he calls The Blob – an amorphous, bloated education establishment opposing him at every turn; a mass of bureaucrats, unions and academics who eschew rigour for a left-wing, child-centred, progressive agenda.

But there is another truism in politics – don’t believe your own hype. Whitehall has a habit of isolating ministers. The day-to-day grind of policy battles, firefighting and political ding-dong can start to cut you off from outside ideas and thinking. The row over Ofsted’s leadership shows the importance of retaining, and being seen to retain, independent voices near the top – not simply “yes men”. The danger is that while The Blob is a useful political tool in the short-term, it simply might not be as deep-rooted as the education secretary believes.

Yes, the main teaching unions' leaderships have played right into the government’s hands over the past four years. Their barrage of industrial action and knee-jerk opposition to any change, has allowed the Education Secretary and his supporters to characterise them as cartoon-like bogeymen. The unions’ political naivety has been astonishing.

But there is a far wider group of non-Blobberati voices across the schools sector, higher education, industry and the voluntary sector, who offer an intelligent critique of where we are now.

These people have been broadly supportive of successive governments' education reforms and, as a result, are not so easily dismissed. They believe in improving our education system but they also advocate sensible debate. They should be listened to by politicians of all parties.

A-levels do not go far enough

A good example of bringing together a range of voices was seen last week with the publication of Making Education Work. This was an independent review, strongly influenced by an advisory group, of which I was a member, consisting of senior business leaders, eminent scientists and leading academics. That’s a powerful alliance whose views deserve a hearing.

We noted that the UK’s economy and society had changed out of all recognition in the last 60 years. Yet we are still wedded to a system where sixth formers specialise in three or four gold-standard A-level subjects.

Indeed, it could be argued that this has been entrenched further by a return to “pass or fail” final exams after two years of study, alongside the introduction of more vocationally orientated Tech-Levels.

For me, it is not being Blob-like at all to ask if that is good enough in the long-term.

I’m not one to join in the national self-flagellation around England’s position in the OECD’s PISA rankings – they are one measure but not the only measure.

But it’s clear that globalised trade, communications, technology and employment means our young people now compete directly with their peers across the world. And everywhere, governments, employers and teachers are asking the same question: how do we ensure that they are highly educated, well-equipped to be good citizens and able to contribute to productive economic growth?

The benefit of long-term thinking

That’s why our review has made clear a secondary curriculum must be much more clearly linked to the UK’s economic and social strategy. And it puts forward a number of important recommendations to do this.

First, a permanent, independent strategic advisory body on curriculum, delivery and assessment. It’s time to end education policy being at the behest of five-year electoral cycles and three decades of changing policy priorities. If national infrastructure projects in areas such as energy and transport deserve long-term thinking, surely the same applies to education?

Second, widening the existing narrow choice of A-level subjects with a broader baccalaureate-style system – based on a core of English, mathematics, science and extended project work.

This won’t happen overnight. We stress it will require better specialist teaching and facilities; that it won’t be appropriate for all; and that top-class science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) degrees will still require early specialisation. But given the demands of employers and society, the case for students to study as broadly as possible is a no-brainer.

Third, a much greater emphasis on non-cognitive, so-called “softer skills” is called for. These include clear communication in English and maths, STEM and digital competence, team working, personal and interpersonal skills. Such skills will help to embed codes of conduct, ethics, emotional maturity, and initiative and entrepreneurship, creativity and cultural awareness. This does not undermine rigour – it enhances it.

New decade, same argument

It seems particularly appropriate to be considering these ideas now. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the publication of the Tomlinson Report into 14-19 education.

It recommended radical reform, including phasing out GCSEs, A and AS-levels and vocational qualifications and replacing them with a new diploma. Too radical as it turned out, when the then-Labour government feared being seen as soft on standards in the run-in to the 2005 election. Tomlinson was ignored and in its place came a watered-down alternative vocational diploma – now discarded.

Yet, a decade later we’re still having the same argument. And without a mature consensus on education reform, we’ll be in the same position in a another decade’s time. I doubt the latest changes to A-levels are the answer on their own. Worse than that, the history of vocational reform suggests Tech-Levels risk being seen as second-rate, however unfairly.

Our report challenges all politicians to demonstrate long-term leadership. Forget fighting The Blob. Building consensus on the future direction of education in this country is a sign of strength, not weakness. Now who is up for the challenge?

Sir David Bell is on the advisory board for the Making Education Better review. He is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Reading and former Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

Michael Gove speaks at the Conservative conference in Birmingham in 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Scotland's vast deficit remains an obstacle to independence

Though the country's financial position has improved, independence would still risk severe austerity. 

For the SNP, the annual Scottish public spending figures bring good and bad news. The good news, such as it is, is that Scotland's deficit fell by £1.3bn in 2016/17. The bad news is that it remains £13.3bn or 8.3 per cent of GDP – three times the UK figure of 2.4 per cent (£46.2bn) and vastly higher than the white paper's worst case scenario of £5.5bn. 

These figures, it's important to note, include Scotland's geographic share of North Sea oil and gas revenue. The "oil bonus" that the SNP once boasted of has withered since the collapse in commodity prices. Though revenue rose from £56m the previous year to £208m, this remains a fraction of the £8bn recorded in 2011/12. Total public sector revenue was £312 per person below the UK average, while expenditure was £1,437 higher. Though the SNP is playing down the figures as "a snapshot", the white paper unambiguously stated: "GERS [Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland] is the authoritative publication on Scotland’s public finances". 

As before, Nicola Sturgeon has warned of the threat posed by Brexit to the Scottish economy. But the country's black hole means the risks of independence remain immense. As a new state, Scotland would be forced to pay a premium on its debt, resulting in an even greater fiscal gap. Were it to use the pound without permission, with no independent central bank and no lender of last resort, borrowing costs would rise still further. To offset a Greek-style crisis, Scotland would be forced to impose dramatic austerity. 

Sturgeon is undoubtedly right to warn of the risks of Brexit (particularly of the "hard" variety). But for a large number of Scots, this is merely cause to avoid the added turmoil of independence. Though eventual EU membership would benefit Scotland, its UK trade is worth four times as much as that with Europe. 

Of course, for a true nationalist, economics is irrelevant. Independence is a good in itself and sovereignty always trumps prosperity (a point on which Scottish nationalists align with English Brexiteers). But if Scotland is to ever depart the UK, the SNP will need to win over pragmatists, too. In that quest, Scotland's deficit remains a vast obstacle. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.