Gove's Baccalaureate Battle

The reason Michael Gove’s English Baccalaureate is proving to be so toxic is the sheer plurality of views on the subject, a diversity that neatly reflects the vast range of learning methods, areas of interest and talents that any single representative cross-section of school pupils will reveal.

The notion that a whole country’s school-age population can be satisfied, fulfilled and lifted to a level of achievement from a solitary system of academic hoop-jumping is naïve at best and is arguably both grossly negligent and condescending.
It fails to address the vast talent pool that is the youth of this country and instead seeks to push our children through a tight gap of attainment: it is the equivalent of attempting to push a square shaped object through a circular hole, it is a fruitless activity that ignores the raw material (if I may be excused from using such an industrial term) and the reams of evidence available on how to get the best out of said material.

The problem is our children are not square shaped or circular, they are star-shaped, they are triangular, they are oval. They are every shape imaginable. No one hole is ever going to accommodate all of our shapes.

Gove’s ambition is usually admirable and his rhetoric has noble elements to it. I agree whole heartedly that we have a duty to our children to impart upon them core life skills such as literacy and numeracy but disagree that they must be taught through the same academic vehicles that this country has used for centuries.

We have a plethora of vocations in this country which contribute vast amounts to our economy and our society and most of which require and teach the literacy, numeracy and other core skills that we are currently seeking to disseminate through our dog-eared textbooks. It goes without saying that a child naturally disposed to more practical activities will be more motivated and open to learning in activities that harness these practical, even non-academic, tendencies.

Where our real duty in this debate lies is in ensuring that the children of this country have an education that motivates, inspires and advances. A degree certificate alone is no longer the golden ticket into employment that it once was and this country is a better place for it. Let’s build our education system around those who it will educate, not around out-dated conceptions of academic box-ticking.

AV Referendum

There are many good reasons to vote for AV just as there are many good reasons to not vote for AV. There are also many bad reasons, for and against; Labour may want to derail the possibility of Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats redeeming credibility off the back of a successful yes campaign, staunch Conservatives may seek to exert some superiority over the liberal factions in their coalition whilst seasoned electoral reform advocates may turn their noses up at the tepid compromise that AV represents to some. A referendum may also represent an extra playground in which to throw mud at our political opponents, a rhetoric free-for-all bereft of the parliamentary responsibility imposed by the normal decision making process. In succumbing to the temptation of any of these however we are failing to realise the true potential that this referendum offers us.

As proponents of the concept of democracy as a tool with which to govern we have a duty to enhance the system as and when we can, to ensure we are operating with the most democratic procedures as we can. As subjective as debating the nuances of democracy can be there are still areas of objectivity that should inform the nature of the AV conversation. If you’re reading this then chances are that you are a member of the engaged minority: an anomalous group who have taken up a personal interest and responsibility in the running of this country. You may also be a member of a political party. Let me then place you into a hypothetical situation; a new voting system has been designed and is unanimously agreed as being the most democratic system, it also decimates the number of MPs one of the main political parties would gain if a general election was called immediately. How would the members of that party vote? It is probably fair to say that they would vote against. I would take issue with this decision.

Setting the hyperbole of the example aside there are lessons to take away. If the most democratic voting system does not translate into elected members for a certain political party the system should not be immediately rejected, no past successes or reputation entitle a party to an election win. It is most likely the messages and policies of the campaigners that have failed to win votes and not the system which has failed to represent voting intentions. As voters, activists and leaders we have an overwhelming responsibility to protect and develop the democratic practices of the country; I would rather be a singular voice in a country of proud democratic practices where the power rests with the governed than the leader of a national party that draws success from a system where the opinion of the electorate is not the main guiding force of the government.

May’s referendum offers us a rare opportunity to reassess our voting system whilst receiving a direct mandate for implementation from the electorate. We would be wise not to sully the decision making process with our own party political biases but instead to construct a conversation informed solely by the democratic values of the voting systems on offer.

Happy campaigning.