GOVE FAILS BACCALAUREATE.

It's been reported today that many schoolchildren had no chance of obtaining the new 'English Baccalaureate' last year as they'd not been entered for the right GCSE subjects. Apparently, some head teachers have complained that this was because the Baccalaureate was only introduced after the children had actually taken their exams, while the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, has said that the Baccalaureate is an aspirational measure' which will 'drive up standards'.

Yet again, I find myself living in a parallel universe.

Why do we need this Baccalaureate at all, when it is simply a recognition that a child has already achieved a required standard in a range of subjects ? Additionally, many may argue that the omission of Arts subjects devalues it, and others complain that the inclusion of only 2 allowable Humanities also does so.

In order to achieve the Baccalaureate, children have to gain good passes in English, Maths, a foreign language (ancient or modern), History or Geography, and a confusing arrangement of sciences. Apart from the last, which of these should not be part of every child's education ? How can any school head teacher complain that the Baccalaureate has effectively, taken them by surprise ? In my view, the only possible area for complaint could be around the sciences in which many children probably have no aptitude or interest, and will never use in any practical sense. That said, a basic knowledge of the world around them is of value and, perhaps, sciences should be included but with a little less emphasis. Why the Arts have no place at all is a mystery.

Turning to the ludicrous figure of Mr Gove, does he ever actually listen to his own words ? 'Aspirational measure'; 'drive up standards' ? What do these expressions mean ?

The aspiration for children and their parents is the GCSE, or A/S-Level, or degree, not some manufactured and entirely unnecessary piece of paper called a Baccalaureate. It seems that the worse our education system becomes, the more ways those in authority find of making it as confused and unintelligible as possible. When I was at school, we had O-Levels, A-Levels, and degrees, backed up by CSEs for those less academically gifted. Colleges awarded ONCs / ONDs and HNCs / HNDs for the more vocational subjects. This sytem, by and large, worked, and was clear. Now we have an array of weird and wonderful qualifications that everyone seems to obtain while remaining horribly uneducated.

Mr Gove's love of the meaningless 'drive up standards' is a measure of the extent to which our language has been degraded by falling standards over many years; we do, of course, have the equally daft 'drive down costs' being used in a variety of arenas as well. I know that I can drive up the road, I can drive down the road, I can drive around the countryside, I can drive a golfball, and even a cricket ball, but these are all tangible objects; how on earth can I 'drive up' or 'drive down' something which is entirely insubstantial and intangible ? Why can Mr Gove not refer to 'improving standards', a far simpler and less silly phrase ?

Yesterday, 'Call me Dave' was pretty rude in the House of Commons, both to the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, and a Labour MP whose name I can't recall. He accused Mr Balls of being the most annoying person in politics but, to me, the most annoying are those who continually fiddle with systems that work until they no longer work, those who invent new and meaningless phrases to promote their policies and those who suddenly bring archaic words into use in an atempt to bamboozle the public. Mr Gove is very near my list of 'Most Annoying' people in politics.