Education

Ofsted reports are a waste of time. Schools are notified three days ahead of any visit from the inspectors. At my school this gives our headmaster plenty of time to bring in an army of cleaners. Every doorknob is polished; every lightbulb dusted; and every skirting board scrubbed.   The teachers themselves get a makeover. Unshaven faces and grubby suits vanish, replaced by nicely pressed trousers and perfect comb overs. They are instructed to dig out their most engaging, intuitive and intriguing lesson plans to impress the men with the clipboards. Pupils take part in the charade, too. At my school, we sit in lessons pretending to study; we know

I have been waiting more than two years for this government to say or do something really radical. By this I don’t mean taking the Blairite revolution to its logical conclusion (or is it reductio ad absurdum?) by introducing pseudo-markets deeper into every area of the public sector and reforms to the welfare state New Labour certainly considered but never dared to carry out. But what was genuinely counter-intuitive for the Labour Party is not necessarily so for the Conservatives. For Tony Blair to embrace the private sector, distance himself from the trade unions and challenge the received wisdom of Labour’s state-ism was a genuine break with the past. For

Michael Gove’s plan to scrap GCSEs and replace them with a beefed-up O-Level are, as Brother Blackburn observed earlier, threatened by the Conservatives’ coalition partners. It seems quite probable that Gove’s proposals will be watered down following the usual “consultation” with the Liberal Democrats. This will, understandably, vex Tories. Gove’s proposals have considerable merit even if, as always, the advantages of his plans are (partially) offset by their drawbacks. As successive governments have discovered it is difficult to build an education system that is demanding, universal and equitable. There must be winners and losers and the argument is chiefly about defining those terms. Today’s developments also demonstrate that neither partner

The Labour Party has a problem with education. On the one hand, it recognises that the academies programme which it inaugurated is very popular with parents. But on the other hand, it knows that the unions, upon which it depends financially, are opposed to reform. This creates tension where policy is concerned: how can the party satisfy voters and the unions? This tension is embodied by the reform-minded shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg (a driving force behind the original adoption of academies), who appeared on Andrew Neil’s Sunday Politics earlier this morning. His words (and there were a lot of them) speak volumes about the party’s difficulty with the word

Nick Clegg wants to make social mobility his big theme in office. This is an ambitious target and one unlikely to be motivated by electoral consideration given that visible progress on this front is unlike to be achieved by 2015. The publication of the former Labour minister Alan Milburn’s report, commissioned by the coalition, into the professions and social mobility takes us to the heart of the debate: when can most be done to aid social mobility. Personally, I think the emphasis should be on education reform and family policy. Others, argue that more can — and should — be done later. Politically, as the row over the appointment of

Garlands from all quarters for Michael Gove’s performance at the Leveson Inquiry this afternoon (well, not quite all quarters) — but the most significant thing that the Education Secretary said wasn’t actually related to the media, but to his ministerial brief. When asked about the prospect of profit-making free schools, he replied that they ‘could’ happen ‘when we come to that bridge’. It’s probably the clearest statement that Gove has made, on record, to demonstrate that he’s not averse to introducing the sort of profit arrangements that could give his agenda an almighty boost. The question is: when will he get to that bridge, then? My understanding is that it’s