Does Michael Gove have the support of the public?

[Machadaynu]

Michael Gove, Minister for Education, seems to me to be a liability.

If he isn't selling off playing fields and accidentally telling people he has sold much fewer than he actually has, he is introducing a dead number system into the maths syllabus, allowing private firms to run schools promoting their beliefs, allowing unqualified people to teach and making a string of other controversial decisions.

I am now at the point where the more I learn about him and his decisions, the less respect I have for him. He seems to me to be entirely out of his depth, and unable to take advice - admittedly this isn't a trait unique to him in this government.

Am I the only one? If he didn't have power he'd be funny.

He most certainly doesn't have my support. He seems determined to take us back to the 1950s which wasn't a good time for education at all.

I like his bravery in a few things ie getting rid of Satisfactory,sorting out the exam board situation and his strive for standards however the Academy thing terrifies me.

I'm livid that academies can sell off school fields,fill vending machines with crap,serve school meals that don't have to adhere to standards,have private companies(who will have money and not kids needs as a priority) running the show,can hire non trained staff etc,etc-all funded by the tax payer. Have a friend who has got booted out of her lovely purpose built staff room in order to accommodate the company with all it's wizzy computer equipment who will be running their newly turned academy.Think the staff have been offered a room with no windows.

I'm really against free schools too as I feel they leach money off existing schools,are elitist(very few kids can get into them) and waste money in areas that don't need schools.Also worried about standards and the state funding Steiner schools re free schools.

So the above kind of negates the things I like about him and make me think he's an utter loon.

I'm fed up that he is "making GCSEs" more rigorous, without giving any time for the changes already made to make GCSEs more rigorous to have taken effect never mind be measured. Of course by having a boy first followed by girls, I have had my kids in the wrong order, as my DS might have done better with all terminal exams, my eldest DD is likely to be extremely stressed which continuous assessment would have helped with.

BTW other than countries which have totally modelled their education systems on the UK, does anyone else really do leaving school qualifications the way we do?

Lily -

I don't think that Gove or anyone else believes that there isn't a place for more practical 'mickey mouse' subjects - it is the fact that 9 out of 10 teenagers now sit one of these subjects that is shocking, and few would see this - including employers who constantly make it clear that they value the more traditional subjects - as a positive thing.

Religious Education was not included in the English Bacc because entries to RE GCSE were rising whilst entries to History and Geography GCSE were falling.

On 'removing satisfactory' from Ofsted - it is a nonsense. There will be outstanding, good and requires imprOvement, with action taken against schools in the 3rd category. All schools 'should' in Gove-land be good or better. Except that to be 'good' the school by definition must achieve results that are better than average. So the same system that says they must be good or better condemns half of schools to fail.

When asked about this, Gove said it was possible for all schools to be good or better if 'they were improving all the time'...

Quote from Hansard: Gove talking to the Education Committee about the Reponsibilities of Secretary of State for Education (Full transcript here)

"Q98 Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible?

Michael Gove: By getting better all the time.

Q99 Chair: So it is possible, is it?

Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time.

Q100 Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State?"

it is the fact that 9 out of 10 teenagers now sit one of these subjects that is shocking

What is shocking is how utterly misleading that headline figure is. When they say 'Mickey Mouse Courses' what they actually mean are 'Vocational Qualifications'. When they talk about 'Cake decorating' (which most would scoff at) it becomes clear that it was only a minuscule amount of students (40 out of well over half a million students) taking it.

What is also misleading is that the vocational qualifications which most of those 9 out of 10 students will have been taking, subjects such as BTEC Sport, Music, Health and Social Care, Science, ICT will still count in the new league tables. Because they are not worthless.

Hmmmm speaking as a parent with children in a "satisfactory" school(low expectations and not very good progress during their primary education) I couldn't give a stuff.Too many kids are languishing in schools with results and progress far too low.

"Satisfactory" isn't satisfactory as it's not good enough.All kids are entitled to a "good" education and if getting rid of the term "satisfactory" means schools have to improve instead of sitting on their backsides thinking we're good enough it can only be a good thing.

Having said that his academy and free school ideas suck!

A 'satisfactory' school doesn't mean the teachers are sitting on their arses.

Our school is satisfactory, but I would send my kids there in a heartbeat. There are so many different things taken into account to give a satisfactory grade - and teaching is, sadly, a tiny part of it. OFSTED make their minds up based on the statistics, and if your kids aren't seen to make enough progress, then that's it.

The school I work in regularly gets above the national average at gcse, but if we haven't improved on lasst year, then we're in special measures. It's bollocks. No two cohorts are the same - just because you got fantastic grades last year, doesn't necesssarily mean it will happen again. Kids are not things to be manufactured.

Conversely, a friend's school, where she's regularly called a cunt by students, is good with outstanding features. THeir pass rate is 20%. Figure that one out.

Hmmm well ours is in a very good,desirable area.The children are fantastic,come from an outstanding pre-school,have v supportive parents etc,etc.There is no excuse and my kids(as does every other child) deserve good teaching and good progress,now one hopes they'll get it.

Now, when I was at school, satisfactory meant OK, if not quite "good" enough to be good.

Since when did it start to mean bad?

Anyway, I really should remind myself to ignore these threads since fortunately Gove has no influence in Scotland as Education is a "reserved" matter.

Anyone who believes the cheap 'Mickey Mouse' headlines and likes to spout Torygraph/DM sound bites should read blog.geoffbarton.co.uk/site/Blog/Entries/2012/8/21_Party_Poopers.htmlthis heartfelt and true appraisal of the situation.

Sorry got link wrong : here

Pretty when it started to mean that schools could get away with kids not making good progress or achieving good results when they jolly well should be-now they can't.

Couldn't give a stuff re Outstanding but sorry all kids deserve to make good progress and to receive good teaching and to be enabled to achieve good results.

I have no issue with wanting all kids making good progress - but when the definition of "good progress" is "above average , it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ALL SCHOOLS TO ACHIEVE IT*

.....and breeeeaaathe! :)

itchy - thank you for that link....stunning writing that speaks the absolute truth

itchy - I don't think that anyone doubts the need or worth of vocational subjects, for all of the reasons detailed in your link, but if 9 out of 10 students are taking them then that is a nonsense because that means that children who are capable of taking more valued, academic subjects that are more likely to lead to further/higher education and employment are not being advised to do so.

Obviously, if the Telegraph article I linked to has its numbers wrong then that's different - are they?

Oh, and I also hate the term 'mickey mouse subjects' but was responding to a poster who had used it.

adeu why do you think that students who are taking vocational courses are not taking academic subjects? You do realise that they only need to be taking one GCSE equivalent course to count in this figure? They could be doing the full Ebacc, triple science and BTEC sport. I don't think there's a problem with that or that they're damaging their future education and employment prospects.

noblegiraffe - Why take BTEC sport instead of GCSE PE?

Is it still the case that BTEC sport counts as 2-3 of your choices, whereas choosing GCSE PE would allow you to take another GCSE too?

No it's not, BTEC Sport is one option block. I don't really know much about BTEC Sport, it could appeal to a student more than PE I suppose.

Anyway, I just looked at the KS4 courses for my school and realised that all students take a national qualification in ICT. This will mean that they count in the 9 out of 10 taking GCSE equivalents, even our triple science Ebacc kids.
So, not horrifying at all.

adeu - it depends on the size of the BTEC, for example the First Diploma has to take place over more than one option due to the amount of worked required. However due to the changes students will be studying the Extended Certificate mostly which needs 120 hours the same as a GCSE.

The reason for taking a BTEC instead of a GCSE as in your example of PE/Sport is that the learning is more vocational. GCSE PE is very much theory based (think close to Biology) whilst the BTEC is looking at Sport from a different direction, i.e. sporting facilities available currently and why they have increased/decreased.

The vocational aspect suits a lot of students far more than academic learning but Gove (spit) thinks that everyone should be the same and they are worthless if they can't learn through the academic route

Well having just done a quick google thorough research I do think that GCSE PE sounds more rigorous, and better regarded, than BTEC Sport.

However, your ICT example is an interesting one. The Telegraph article I linked to did refer to vocational courses offered as GCSE equivalents, so I don't know whether a compulsory, additional ICT qualification would feature in those statistics. If they do then yes I agree, this would skew the figures considerably.

Sorry cricketballs, x post believe it or not, started replying and got distracted halfway through.

So I do think that someone capable of doing the English Bacc and triple science (as in noblegiraffe's example) would be better served, and capable of doing, GCSE PE.

GCSE equivalency subjects should be available to those students who are not suited to academic learning, but that is not 9 out of 10 students (although ICT issue above has given me pause for thought I admit).

Yes, the national ICT award they take is equivalent to one GCSE.
So 10 out of 10 students in my outstanding state school take a 'Mickey Mouse' course. I expect that isn't uncommon, as students have to have ICT lessons at KS4 (just as they have to have PE lessons) so they might as well get a qualification out of it.

Having done a quick google, it seems that loads of schools put all their students through the OCR national ICT award. Shocking Telegraph headline explained.