Taking languages and humanities out of the compulsory curriculum at Key Stage 4 was, in my opinion, one of Labour’s early mistakes. It had an inevitable consequence – the numbers of young people studying these subjects dropped drastically. Later, Labour introduced an ‘entitlement’ to foreign languages at primary schools but the drop at secondary level led to insufficient modern foreign languages teachers being trained, and the take-up at primaries has been patchy. The result has been polarisation, with languages and humanities mainly studied at private and middle class state schools, whereas in many urban areas they’ve largely disappeared. Hardly an equitable result.

Michael Gove has lurched the other way with his ‘English Baccalaureate’. Imposed arbitrarily, it has condemned many schools to instant failure since it’s been immediately incorporated into the league table criteria. It’s right in my view that languages are back in, but the way in which Gove has carried out the change seems based more on old-fashioned prejudice rather than rational thinking. For example, supporters of religious education are angry because now it’s now been left out in the cold, as has design and technology.

That’s why I support Stephen Twigg’s proposal that government and opposition work together to form a cross-party consensus on a lasting National Curriculum. Announced in his speech to the North of England Education Conference on Thursday, it links to the launch of a review into education and the world of work to be carried out by Barry Sheerman MP. Speaking at the same conference on Friday, schools minister Nick Gibb made no mention of Twigg’s offer but it would seem difficult for Gove to refuse it, since the opposite – a party political fight over what young people should study –  is clearly so daft. Politicians, teachers and governors generally agree on the importance of a broad curriculum, but defining the boundaries needs reflection and consultation.

As chair of governors of a business and enterprise college I have a particular interest in the transition to work. I was very proud the other week to watch a superb musical performance at our school. Music and drama build confident and articulate individuals; I could already imagine the stars of the show singing and dancing their way, as it were, through their first job interviews. The same applies to sport; its character-building role is accepted in the private sector but not consistently enough in state schools.

Aptitude for work rather than specific skills is key. Good organisations like Rolls-Royce, Honda or John Lewis train their own people but they can’t train the propensity to turn up on time or to get on with people.  Later in government, Labour possibly became too preoccupied about the academic/vocational divide. It’s wrong that snobbery about vocational subjects exists. But an accessible menu of superficially appealing vocational routes can crowd out the harder-edged subjects and for this reason working-class children sometimes fail to reach their potential.

Choosing the right vocational path is anyway not easy. First, there’s the simple point that FE colleges, as specialists, generally do this better than schools. And more fundamentally, it’s difficult to second-guess the vocations that our rapidly changing economy will need in the future. For example, a friend of mine is now a successful video game producer, but when he was at school this industry barely existed. His school’s curious ICT lessons on primitive computers weren’t really relevant, but their encouragement with languages, together with an ability to get on with people and work well in a team, landed him jobs in the industry.

There are further confusions about university and the academic pathway that leads to it. At all levels, it’s the breadth of learning and experience which makes a difference for employability. Typical entry-level jobs are now often ‘customer-facing’, where employees need to be articulate and engage with customers. It’s a tragedy of Britain’s educational failure that there are barely-employable ‘Neets’ in the same towns where there’s still a market for jobs in retail, catering or other services. By the same token it’s the dull graduates who end up on benefits, but they’ve still got a better chance than those with no qualifications.

It will be interesting to see how the curriculum debate works out and let’s hope that a cross-party position will be achieved. Twigg’s moderate, evidence-based approach will certainly appeal to children, parents and educationalists more than the fogeyish and dogmatic Mr Gove.

—————————————————————————————

James Valentine is a councillor in Bedford and member of Labour’s Education and Skills Policy Commission

—————————————————————————————

Photo: Pesky Librarians