Dear Mr Gove (Part Two)

Dear Mr Gove,

I would like to talk to you today about comprehensive education.

The aim of the comprehensive system of education is to provide opportunities for all children, regardless of background or ability. In this country, the majority of secondary pupils are educated in state-funded comprehensive schools.

The Oxford English  Dictionary defines 'comprehensive' as:

                of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive

Before I go any further, I would like to make it absolutely clear that I, too, care about high standards in education. I believe very strongly that in a school full of pupils of mixed ability, the standard must be set by the brightest. I also believe that the brightest require attention just as much as the weakest, and ought not to be neglected simply because they will probably be ok. If the current courses are too easy for them, they must be stretched with something more challenging, so that the highest standard set is the highest standard possible. 

However, not everyone is fortunate enough to have the privilege of intellect. There are others who might be clever if given the chance, but who are held back at certain points in their lives through various external factors (please see my previous post). Some people excel in one particular subject and struggle with others. Others are simply not interested in an academic education - they want to enter a particular trade and don't see how Hamlet, the speed of electromagnetic waves, or the value of x are relevant to those careers. Still others are trapped within social and domestic problems: they are caring for a sick or disabled parent; they are impoverished; they live in homes that are violent, or neighbourhoods that are violent, or cities that are violent. The detailed study of Romeo and Juliet or Great Expectations, which might lead to an A* in GCSE English Literature, is simply not on their radar.

The main question I would like to ask, therefore, is: Are your reforms creating a comprehensive education, one which meets the needs of all of these pupils? Will the education you propose - and which is already being implemented in the core subjects - be inclusive? Will it cover all subject areas of arts, mathematics, humanities, sciences, social sciences, technology, ICT and languages, so that there is something for everyone to be good at? 

You have made your scorn for 'soft subjects' very clear. Soft subjects include PE, Drama, Law, Sociology, Psychology, Media Studies and Film Studies. Another 13 subjects are under scrutiny, and if they are found to be lacking in sufficient rigour, will not be allowed to be taught as GCSEs, but as something else - a hobby, perhaps.

Your reasoning for this is that the Russell Group universities have published a guide saying that they prefer traditional subjects, and so young people whose GCSE choices include soft subjects, and who choose to take A'Levels in such soft subjects, might be denied access to the country's top universities. Therefore, you have created a curriculum which, if everyone follows it successfully, will enable everyone to gain a place at one of the country's leading universities.

So now I would like to ask you to consider the following questions:

How many 18-year-old students are there in the UK?

How many places are there in Russell Group universities?

How many students are left over?

What happens to those students who - for whatever one of myriad reasons - cannot, at the age of 12, 14, 16 or 18, cope with the rigour of the most rigorous subjects?  What happens to those for whom a Russell Group university is, and always will be, out of reach? By removing other subjects from the curriculum, what are you providing them with?

You are providing them with failure.You are providing them with no education at all.