49 Comments on An open letter to Michael Gove

Liam Murray on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 11:38 am


Will be very interested in the response Matthew – I assume it’ll be posted here?

Quick thought:

“more should rise to the bar, the bar shouldn’t be moved to allow more to jump it.”

That seems like such a common sense observation (to me &, I suspect, many others) that it’s rather alarming that it appears to be a point of contention here….

Christine on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 1:08 pm


I am careful about this topic because there are so many things that young people can benefit from if we approach teaching and learning in a cross-curricular fashion. Many aspects about my own philosophy are, however, quite conservative. I do know that if we emphasize learning through new media, we are in fact teaching new media first, and then what ever subject, afterwards. It then sort of makes me feel like a salesman for new media companies, and less of a sharer of knowledge. When I brought this point up, I was told that this is what children respond to we and need to meet them at their level.

If teaching children requires us to meet them at their level, how can they ever rise up and achieve higher learning? As an artist, I feel there is a big distinction between teaching artistic concepts through new media, and teaching them through traditional methods. Yes, teaching Impressionism using a magic board makes the whole concept sexier, but what does it do to stick in the minds of learners? Scientifically, new media is a light-based device that disperses its light, making the information the viewer receives, dispersed. How is this going to help me teach? I connect really well with my students, and I think good teachers should not rely on new media as a gimic to lure students into absorbing concepts. Teach teachers to teach.

Susmita on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 1:12 pm


Liam, that’s exactly what I thought. The constant lowering of the bar is not doing our children, or indeed the UK, any good. Employers and recruitment consultants often report that application forms and CVs completed by people speaking English as a second language boast a higher standard of English than those completed by native English speakers.

What are we offering our children if education is about lowering the bar to enable an entirely false sense of achievement?

matthewtaylor on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 1:30 pm


I thought this point might raise hackles. Let me explain. It can be argued that increasing educational participation – getting more people to continue their learning – is a good thing. This has been what policy has done. More young people stay on to higher education now than went to sixth form when I was at school. This has not been achieved simply by raising standards. We have also developed new content and new forms of assessment that enable more people to succeed. After all what is the point of stying in education if you can’t gain any qualifications.

Another process has been the professionalising of occupations. Nursing is the classic example. Nurses now need full degrees. So we have developed courses for nurses. These, presumably, are less demanding than medical degrees which were a few decades ago the only medical training in higher education. So to make nursing a graduate occupation and to we have lowered the bar to gaining a health related degree. Is that a bad thing? On balance I don’t think so

phil korbel on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 1:51 pm


Matthew – I admire your polite reserve in describing what Gove has said.

I’ve recently been inspired by two visionary Head Teachers for soon-to-be- opened Academies here in Manchester, and so much of what they are proposing is a cross-curricular, project-led re-inventing of the school experience. None of what they were saying was about lowering the bar – and everything about getting the children to participate in education [as opposed to it being something that is done to them] So what now, they start their pioneering work to pull the city out of the educational trough with this shadow hanging over them?

Christine – i’m a huge advocate of the use of media prodcution tools in the class-room but it shouldn’t be the subject, and yes there is no replacement for that ‘connection’ to the pupils that you mention.

Steve on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 2:05 pm


In the very early 70’s I left a grammar school at the age 16 with precious few qualifications. My understanding is that it was very much the kind of school Mr Gove would to approve of. I am no educationalist and have no real understanding of education theory but I do know that when I saw the education my kids got in the 90’s I was really rather jealous – in the main, motivated teachers strove to involve and enthuse them, their personal interests were acknowledged and encouraged and the notion of citizenship and community involvement was an integral part of the school philosophy. I believe that (as far as any teenagers can) they left school fairly rounded human beings and both went on happily to higher education.

I no longer feel quite the sense of indignation I once did over the appalling education I suffered at school but I still resent greatly the fact that I had to wait until I went to work to find inspirational teachers who involved me not just in my job but in the wider world.

I wonder if you will get a reply Matthew?

Liam Murray on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 2:12 pm


That’s a useful clarification and an aspect of the debate that needs particular caution Matthew (because, as you acknowledge, it can ‘raise hackles’).

On the substance though I still think there’s room for debate here. First we should acknowledge that this generalised talk about ‘the bar’ doesn’t really help the discussion – there are, in fact, many, many different ‘bars’ depending on field of study, future career etc. I have no particular objection to broadening content and assessment mechanisms to allow those who previously operated in a more traditional, ‘on-the-job’ type environment to gain some qualifications to reflect that – as you point out this doesn’t ‘lower the bar’ on the degree needed to become a GP but introduces new qualifications not open to people before..

What we need to be clear on though is the motive behind this ‘professionalisation’ of certain occupations – your nursing example illustrates this very well. At the risk of coming across all ‘Daily Mail’ on this Matthew it’s not unreasonable, if we’re going to spend public money putting this professional framework in place, to expect the standard of nursing care in hospitals to increase quite significantly. The danger is that this professionalisation becomes an end in itself, something that supports a laudable (and often transient) government target of keeping people in education but has next to no impact on service delivery on the front line. Anecdotal stories are always a danger but I spent some time in & out of hospitals with my 2yr old son last summer (all’s well now) and it was immediately clear which of the nursing staff had many years experience & learning on the job behind them and which had the more academic background.

Susmita on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 2:25 pm


On the subject of nursing – my father was a hospital consultant for 35+ years and all the nurses we know have complained bitterly about the nursing degrees as having no practical value and diverting focus away from the real work. I’ve yet to meet one that thinks it has real value. I think the problem here was that we didn’t value nurses highly enough in the first place. The creation of a formal degree hasn’t helped with the quality of care but I daresay it’s lined a few a pockets. And of course, the more people you have in higher education, the lower the unemployment stats. Great for government, useless for many students who find themselves in debt and for no purpose, as their qualification doesn’t help them much in the real world.

Robyn on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 2:56 pm


A response to Liam Murray, and others who may share the same reservation:

“Quick thought – “more should rise to the bar, the bar shouldn’t be moved to allow more to jump it.” seems like such a common sense observation (to me &, I suspect, many others) that it’s rather alarming that it appears to be a point of contention here….”

I agree that on face value that statement alone seems common sense, but the full context used changes that: “strategies to widen participation in learning should not include developing forms of content and levels of assessment which enable more children to succeed”.

If the only option for children is an academic curriculum, especially one that focuses on left-brain, industrial age skills, then a large majority of children are excluded from achievement by virtue of the fact that humans have different skills and abilities. We need those differences in our society; we need to nurture and develop a range of abilities, but a narrow academic curriculum does not allow that to happen and forcing kids who are not academic-shaped into an academic hole just makes them feel like failures and disengage from education. Likewise, put a purely academic kid into a class that requires them to be physical and creative and they will hate it, not do well and not want to be there.

To widen participation, you need an education system that can develop all the different skills and abilities humans have and need in society. Which means you need different teaching and assessment models, but the conservative policy (if Mathhew has it right) suggests that there is one currciulum and one form of pedagogy that is ‘best’.

In Australia’s vocational training system, they have a principle that you can’t use as an assessment tool anything that is not required to do the job for which you are being trained. So, when assessing a welder, you can’t ask them to compose an essay about welding as part of the assessment: the job does not require that degree of literacy. You can ask them to complete a safety form, as that is a requirement of the job. This principle makes traditional teachers uncomfortable at first, but what you soon learn is that it is no less rigourous to ask them to be able to perform different types of welds using different materials under exam conditions. And in the end, would you want the guy building the train you ride to work to have been assessed that way, or to have written an essay about it?

Widening participation means broadening the set of skils and abilities we value in education, and therefore the types of content, teaching and learning materials and methods of assessment. Michael Gove seems to be advocating that we require all people to be able to quote Coleridge and cite the dates of historic battles, regardless of whether that is a good thing for them as a learner, or us as a society.

Should we raise, lower, or abolish the bar in education? : RSA Education on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 3:37 pm


[...] Taylor has blogged an open letter to Michael Gove, which has given rise to some really interesting discussion of the notion of what we mean by [...]

Louise Thomas on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 3:46 pm


Matthew is absolutely right to draw out the logical conclusions of what Michael Gove seems to be implying, and I also agree with Liam in that I think we need to be clear about what we mean by ‘bar’ when we talk about raising it or lowering it – do we mean bar to participation (or further post-compulsory participation) in education, bar to some kind of educational success during compulsory schooling, or bar to what we consider excellence/high achievement in the traditional sense (academia, the arts, sport)? The implications of each of these is very different.

The debate on standards gets very murky partly because these definitions of ‘bar’ are confused. See my blog post for a lengthier exposition of what I mean: http://education.rsablogs.org.uk/2009/07/16/should-we-raise-lower-or-abolish-the-bar-in-education/

rhian on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 7:34 pm


I was led to this blog via about 3 other blogs, so I’m just here by chance as I am not an educationalist..
At the risk of stating the obvious, I would say to Mr Gove:
Why does there have to be an ‘either / or ‘ solution? Why can’t we have the best of all worlds where all different needs can be met?
So for example: traditional and newer subjects should both be taught in a variety of ways: i.e. chalk/talk along with more contemporary learning sytles;
life skills should be included as well as traditional subjects etc etc
You get the drift..
As for raising the bar: more important is to bring out the best in every individual and encourage them to excel in their strengths and make the best they can out of their weaknesses…so that they leave school with some self-esteem and pride in who they are…so that the ones that don’t reach the bar don’t feel like losers when they go out into the world and maybe even leave having enjoyed their experience… or is that one step too far?!
If I see Mr Gove on my travels i can direct him here…

Lewesbusker on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 8:12 pm


I noted that Michael Gove invoked the name of Tom Paine at the conclusion of his RSA diatribe. As a proud resident of Lewes, which this year marks 200 years since the death of arguably its most famous resident, I can’t just let that go i.e. the misappropriation of a great free-thinker into the Tory cause.

Surely Paine’s most famous declaration was that “We have it in our power to build the world anew”. ANEW i.e. not harking back to earlier ages as Conservative education policy would have. Children certainly do start the school system with the power and belief that they are free to ‘build anew’, so would you mind, Mr Gove, letting them build as they see fit?

Lewesbusker on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 9:43 pm


OK. So, technically he said ‘begin’ (not build). Same point though )

Marbury on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 8:51 am


An interesting debate. I know nothing about education policy (as you’re about to find out) but I’m surprised at the hostility to what Gove is saying (those of you who haven’t done so should watch his speech on the RSA site). I’m not a Labour supporter but found myself in in vehement agreement with much of what he said.

For instance, that there should be an Education department – and the state should regard education as an end in itself, a humane goal, rather than as a means to an end. It’s ironic (or something) that it’s a Labour government which seems to treat the education system as as a mere contributor to future economic productivity, turning out useful social units. Even the debate above focuses on instrumentalism.

Gove is absolutely right to say that “relevance” has been too dominant as a curriculum criterion. A large part of the point of education is to help us learn things that we otherwise would never encounter or begin to understand in our day-to-day lives. The importance of “difficulty” has been under-estimated. The more you struggle to grasp something, the greater and more enduring the benefits when you do – we now have evidence from neuroscience to provide evidence for this intuitive insight. I think educationalists and some teachers have lost sight of that.

The standards of maths and science education ARE appalling – whatever the nuances of the debate above, it seems to me that the ‘bar’ has to be raised here. Again, it’s not so we can turn out better nurses. It’s so we can help people become more well-rounded. More educated! This should be a goal of the left. Anyone remember William Morris?

Finally: our knowledge of this country’s history is embarrassing, and it’s ever more important, as Britain becomes an ever more multi-cultural society, that we all have knowledge of the country we share. That’s something America’s schools do very well. Gove is correct to stress the importance of restoring narrative here, a sense of the overarching story. You can’t learn history without it. You can’t have arguments about history without it.

phil korbel on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 9:13 am


marbury – I agree with a lot of what you say [and thus by inference w Gove?] but if we dont involve and excite the children how can we raise the bar? That’s why I react badly to the returning spectre of ‘chalk and talk’.

Marbury on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 9:39 am


‘Chalk and talk’ isn’t in Gove’s speech, so we’ll have to hear from him about that. But watch it and you’ll conclude that he’s no Neanderthal – he’s thought and researched his subject with care and passion in a way few shadow ministers (or even ministers) ever do. To your point, I agree. Studies show that the single most important variable in education is the quality of teachers – and that the best teachers are phenomenally responsive, intently aware of each individual in their class at any one moment, eager to engage with them etc. This is why I think that good teachers CAN make Shakespeare or the English Civil War come alive for children who otherwise would never go near them. It’s an insult to good teachers – and to kids – to say otherwise. And whether they’re going to be welders or physicists themselves, those children will feel, as adults, that their lives are richer as a result.

Marbury on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 9:48 am


Correction to my first post. It may be a Freudian slip (actually it’s the result of sloppy editing) but I meant to say, “I AM a Labour supporter”…

Liam Murray on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 10:17 am


Thanks Robyn.

I actually agree with most of what you say and I don’t think Michael Gove would disagree much either – there’s a danger here that we misrepresent Michael Gove’s position because of a knee-jerk anti-Tory reflex (even a mature, well-articulated one!)

I understood the thrust of Michael’s argument to be that schools are being asked to carry more weight than they can currently bear, to address (or participate in addressing)a range of social problems far beyond the reach of the school day and the professionals that work in education. These demands might (and I stress ‘might’) be legitimate provided the core, traditional functions of schooling & education were being met and weren’t being diluted or undermined by these secondary or tertiary purposes.

Of course it’s vitally important to recognise that children have different strengths & skills and they can’t all be squeezed through the same narrow channel. I don’t think the Conservatives would deny that for a minute and there’s nothing in their policy proposals to suggest otherwise. Michael’s argument, in fact, is that by trying to address that variety of needs within our current system (a system which in terms of it’s broad structure and set up hasn’t changed materially in 40 years) we are doing just that – pushing every child through the one giant homogenised ‘education pipe’ and consequently failing significant numbers of them.

You say:

“Widening participation means broadening the set of skils and abilities we value in education, and therefore the types of content, teaching and learning materials and methods of assessment”

And I suspect Michael would agree completely – his argument is that we don’t ‘broaden’ what we value simply by reducing the depth of those aspects of education more traditionally valued. It’s about balance that’s all…..

Mike Amos-Simpson on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 3:58 pm


http://ow.ly/hwCP

I’d much prefer that school inspired my children to want to learn, to be creative and to be critical of the vast amount of knowledge that’s more freely available than it ever has been before. Unconvinced that making them memorise past facts and theories is the best way of achieving this.

I think the comments that technology can’t replace good teaching are very true, but there’s all the issue of bad workmen blaming their tools: http://ow.ly/hwLy

Martin Robinson on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 4:08 pm


Aren’t we all waiting to see if there’s a reply?

Mike Amos-Simpson on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 4:17 pm


“Aren’t we all waiting to see if there’s a reply?” yes

matthewtaylor on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 5:50 pm


I do hope so Steve. I went to a very successful grammar school and hated it. Mind you I was the only leftie out of 900 pupils in a school that Labour trying to turn into a comprehensive so I wasn’t really int eh business of winning friends and influencing people

matthewtaylor on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 5:52 pm


These are all good points Liam. At this stage I just want Michael to explore the implications of his approach. I think it is consistent with a much more rigorous sorting of pupils at 11 or 14 and with abandoning the attempt to increase participation in formal academic learning. There is a case to be made for this but it deserves proper debate before the Conservatives take power.

matthewtaylor on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 5:56 pm


Thanks Susmita for your characteristically robust comments (good for those outside the RSA to know i allow free expression among the staff!). I wouldn’t be as black and white as you on this but I do think there are important issues to be raised about the pros and cons of professionalising occupations (something that has happened in the private as well as the public sector)

matthewtaylor on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 5:59 pm


Thanks Robyn. Loved this contribution. You might like the post that Louise from our education team has put on her blog http://education.rsablogs.org.uk/

matthewtaylor on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 6:01 pm


I agree with this Rhian. In his defence MG would say he is all for diversity in schools practice. My point is that if he feels something strongly and is Sec of State it will filter through the system. That’s why it is important to understand what he believes.

matthewtaylor on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 6:07 pm


Hi Marbury. I think you and MG do agree and you can infer my views from my blog and other comments. One point I would make about the alleged fall in standards. There is little disagreement that the top 5-10% of pupils in the UK are amongst the best in the world. I don’t think this has changed. What has, however, is that when once this group represent about half of thsoe going on to higher education they now represent a fifth. So a lot more people are passing exams and moving to higher levels. We might argue that this is wrong – see the debate about the ‘bar’ above – but we shouldn’t compare the elite of yesterday with the much larger groups of post compulsory learners today.

matthewtaylor on Fri, 17th Jul 2009 6:09 pm


Thanks Mike i agree. Both my sons have said to me at various times. Why do I have to learn this if i want to know it I can Google it. I have tried to answer and on things like learning your times table it is easy to explain that this is stuff you need to hard wire but it isn’t easy when you get to less generic bits of knowledge.

Martin Robinson on Sat, 18th Jul 2009 10:39 am


Inspired by this discussion and the work of John White (See his book: The Curriculum and the Child) I have started to compile a list of possible ‘false dichotomies’ in education. (See my blog: http://blog.yesassess.co.uk/2009/07/false-dichotomies-of-education.html)

As we watch the pendulum swing, inevitably, back and forth between ‘progressive’ and ‘traditional’ I wonder if there actually is a place between them where it should rest? Alternatively, is the pendulum swinging itself essential, as the continual upheaval is actually a good and creative thing for our society?

Joe Nutt on Sat, 18th Jul 2009 8:41 pm


Anyone who has listened to Michael Gove will know he is acutely aware of the dangers of the naturally conservative mindset (if there is such a thing) and is not at all interested in pendulums or harking backwards thoughtlessly. Besides being in agreement with much of what Liam Murray comments here, I would add something about bars which so many people have commented on.

When I started teaching almost 30 years ago, a large part of your job was to point every child you taught towards the examination hurdle they faced on day, and give them the confidence, knowledge and skills to get over it. You coaxed them, cajoled them, praised them, prepared them for the day when you knew they could do it but you and they knew it was THEIR hurdle and they had to jump it.

Midway through my career someone started to suggest it was my job and every other teachers’, not just to hold their hand, but to jump it with them, and today… there are many, many teachers, especially those who peddle “skills” or project based learning, who actually jump it for them. It used to be called cheating.

Marbury on Sat, 18th Jul 2009 11:07 pm


Hi Matthew

Thanks for your response. I have to say, I actually can’t infer your views from your post or your comments. I get a vague idea of where you’re at. But your post is just a summary of MG’s speech. I was very interested to hear your riposte to the the idea that standards are declining, and it’s certainly encouraged me to question that proposition. But I’d like to see you explicitly taking on some of the points MG makes, and perhaps some of the ones I touch on above.

For instance, do you think it’s fair to say that we’ve overshot on ‘relevance’?

Do you think we’ve under-estimated the value of ‘difficulty’ (I’m thinking here of the marshmallow test….and the importance of teaching kids self-mastery)?

Do you think we should aim to educate all children into a broad narrative of this country’s history – one that they can then dispute if they wish?

Do you think we should value education as an end in itself as not as a means to an economic end? That’s seems to be what Robyn’s post implies: I need only be worrying about whether the train I’m riding on has been built by proficient welder. Well, I might want this welder to have been educated into the sort of reflective and analytic skills one needs to write an essay – and not so that I feel safer on the train, but for broader social reasons.

Here’s Robyn: “Michael Gove seems to be advocating that we require all people to be able to quote Coleridge and cite the dates of historic battles, regardless of whether that is a good thing for them as a learner, or us as a society.”

But I suspect he does think that’s a good thing for everyone as a learner, and for us as a society. I do. Isn’t it good for society if people know a few key dates, so that we all have some sort of shared historical framework to argue within or against? Isn’t everyone’s life is improved by learning some great poetry, whether they grow up to be a welder or an accountant?

As I said in my first post, I know next to nothing about educational theory. But as an adult, I can say that a lot of the things I’m most glad I know, or can do (like reading music, for instance) are the things I HATED most as a child – and for which I had no aptitude or inclination whatsoever. For example, I’m guessing that if we moved towards the model implied by Robyn’s comments, I wouldn’t have learnt music. I wasn’t inclined to do it, I had no talent for it, and it certainly offered no economic benefit. I wasn’t “music-shaped”. But I’m SO glad that my school (and my parents) encouraged me – made me – learn it.

If we attend too much to what the child wants to learn, we end up depriving them – as adults – of things they ought to have learned. Education should work against the grain of a child’s interest as well as with it.

Mike Amos-Simpson on Sat, 18th Jul 2009 11:15 pm


and if we give young people such a negative experience of education through forcing them to memorise facts and theories that they’re not able to relate to their interests or ambitions we also potentially put them off education for life – and not only put them off education themselves but instil a negativity that they then pass on to their children which for me is one of the biggest problems schools have – children not valuing education because it hasn’t been passed down to them to do so.

Martin Robinson on Sun, 19th Jul 2009 8:16 am


Some thoughts:

I hope that welders will only be taught welding in their welding courses and exams. Nevertheless, welders are also, possibly, parents, members of communities, voters, audiences, musicians, readers, lovers and maybe in the future not even welders, therefore they need to be adaptable and have an education of breadth.

The Pendulum swinging is not necessarily thoughtless – far from it, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. However, it is noticeable: Exclusion, Inclusion, Exclusion. Education department, DCSF, education department. O Levels, GCSEs, iGCSEs, No National Curriculum, National Curriculum, More schools having freedom to follow their own curriculum. Chronological British history, Modular thematic history, Chronological British history. Texts from the ‘great tradition’, more ‘relevant’ texts, texts from the great tradition. Exams, Coursework, Exams. I could go on…

As for skills learning being about ‘jumping for them, or cheating!’ the opposite is the truth. I agree that teachers are now doing a lot of the work that students used to do in schools. The reason for this is that teachers and schools are being judged on their exam results and not just the students, therefore teachers are under pressure to ensure that any student who is likely to get a D, gets a C or higher. That puts pressure on teachers, who are hard working and stressed. Our students are becoming de-skilled as they learn to expect to be led or dragged through the system and are NOT learning the skills necessary for lifelong learning, to work independently or in teams. These ‘soft’ skills are extremely important in many private schools see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jul/19/private-schools-share-facilities as ‘character education’ is something valued by many ‘middle class’ parents.

Joe Nutt on Sun, 19th Jul 2009 9:53 pm


Martin, I think we are using “skills’ in a very different way. You are absolutely right to cite the success of the private system in teaching what you describe as soft skills. Much of my teaching career was in the private sector and I know just how brilliant they are at it. The best private school teachers tend to regard exams as a necessary nuisance on the way to creating a civilised adult, and league tables for them have always been an insulting nonsense. But I wouldn’t ever put these essentially social skills in the same category as the mundane, functional “skills” recent curriculum changes have introduced.

The point I was really seeking (but clearly failing) to make, was that the issue is fundamentally one of personal responsibility. Educational responsibility has been systematically taken away from a whole generation of children largely by a political class that patronises them and their parents, under the hypocritical pretence of “caring”.

On teacher cheating as the effect. Have a look at what the author of Freakeconomics discovered when he analysed something like 700,000 exam scripts in Chicago. We haven’t even scratched the surface of the same problem yet in the UK.

Lewesbusker on Wed, 22nd Jul 2009 4:19 pm


No sign of Michael then..?

Lewesbusker on Wed, 29th Jul 2009 6:10 pm


Michael been in yet..?

matthewtaylor on Thu, 30th Jul 2009 7:36 am


No, I was told he planned to do it before his summer break. I’ll chase it up today. Thanks for the reminder

Kerry Turner on Thu, 13th Aug 2009 7:22 am


I didn’t make Mr Gove’s talk and recently came across this discussion blog.

I had an email exchange with Mr Gove prior to his talk in which I expressed my point of view on the UK education system and my desire to help.

Here is my point of view:
The symptoms of decline in the UK are visible for all to see: Poor health, obesity, crime, ASB, breakdown of communities, weak economy and business failures. All these symptoms can be traced back to the same root causes. Poor choices which fail to consider the longer term impact on the system as a whole.
I believe…
• That we are all the sum of our previous choices (and the choices of our parents before us);
• that I can only directly influence my own choices and behaviours;
• that we demonstrate our choices and our intelligence through our behaviour;
• that a better choice creates more choice in future;
• that to make a better choice I must strive to understand the systems in which I operate (and in particular the system called “me”);
• that the single most important thing that could happen in the world today would be for people to learn how to make better choices;
• that if we all made better choices ourselves then the system in which we operate would be more sustainable.

For the last 24 years I have worked in management consultancy. I specialise in helping my clients to create and deliver better strategies for the sustainable future of their organisations. Past and current clients include: Nestle, ABB, M&S, Allied Domecq, Bass, Inchcape, Abbey, Thorn UK, Spillers, BMW, Ministry of Defence, DVLA, Dept of Health, Ministry of Justice.

Through my career I have learnt about a technique called Systems Thinking. This is a way of understanding the cause and effect relationships driving performance. It enables us to identify better ways of achieving our objectives by understanding the long term consequences of our actions. I wish that I had been taught this at school instead of how to pass exams! My objective is to get this approach taught to children. Over the past few years I have struggled to get traction in the formal UK education system. I am currently exploring other ways of reaching kids via activities outside school such as sport.

By giving kids a framework to make better choices I believe that we will fix many of our problems at their root cause. We also need to support and guide these choices through consistent government policies on taxation and incentives.

In an email Mr Gove asked me “what are the three things we need to do to change education in this country? ”

My response:
“You asked in your previous email for 3 things to change. I believe those 3 things are:

(1) Thinking and choosing skills (especially skills in understanding the cause and effect systems in which we all operate) to be integral to the curriculum and to be the glue that binds the curriculum together;
(2) The introduction of a balanced set of measures reflecting the needs of all stakeholders to quantify pupil attainment and school performance; and
(3) Teaching to be transformed into the “profession of choice” so that it attracts and retains the best and is suitably rewarded and respected.

With these 3 things we will change not only the face of the UK education system but everything…our wellbeing, our workforce and our economy.

I would be delighted to explain more about the strategy and techniques for achieving this if we can meet. ”

Mr Gove asked me to expand on this and I offered to meet him. I am still waiting
for his response.

I sent the same point of view to the Libdems and Greens. Holding replies received but nothing concrete.

I am happy to give my time for free. I just want to see our kids being taught how to think and make better choices. Surely that is the aim of education?

Any ideas? Anyone willing to help?

Lewesbusker on Mon, 17th Aug 2009 11:28 am


Any sign of Michael..?

Personally, I spotted him in the pages of The Independent (again) today…

matthewtaylor on Mon, 17th Aug 2009 2:33 pm


No, no sign. I am thinking of going back to this later today or tomorrow.

Still no response from Michael Gove : Matthew Taylor’s blog on Tue, 18th Aug 2009 12:40 pm


[...] have given up hope that Michael Gove will reply to the questions I posed to him – on his invitation – last month. I’d like to say this is because he is on the run from my [...]

Meet the new targets - same as the old targets? : Matthew Taylor’s blog on Thu, 20th Aug 2009 11:22 am


[...] good news. Michael Gove has told me he will be replying in September to the questions I posed in my blog a few weeks ago. Hopefully we can generate some wider coverage for what is an important [...]

Time to abandon wider participation? : Matthew Taylor’s blog on Fri, 18th Sep 2009 12:28 pm


[...] basics’ approach to the school curriculum means for post 18 participation rates. This is one of the questions I posed to Michael Gove nearly two months ago. He and his team have promised me a response and I am still waiting. Maybe [...]

Michael Gove and my midlife crisis : Matthew Taylor’s blog on Thu, 1st Oct 2009 9:43 am


[...] most ‘senior’ politicians. Several weeks ago, after he had spoken here at the RSA, I wrote a post asking Michael seven questions about Conservative schools policy, particularly concerning the [...]

The two worlds of education discourse : Matthew Taylor’s blog on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 8:59 am


[...] in the run-up to the General Election. In an attempt to get over some of the false dichotomies, I tried unsuccessfully to engage Tory spokesman Michael Gove in a debate about the core ideas underlying his eloquent and profound critique of most modern [...]

Time for a bit of Gove and take : Matthew Taylor’s blog on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 12:38 pm


[...] this, I assume Michael was referring to the list of questions I publicly posed him after his lecture here last June. ‘Number two’ does sound hopeful as long [...]

Michael Gove and the return to ‘chalk-and-talk’ on Sat, 16th Jan 2010 5:24 pm


[...] to knee-jerk reactions is surely one we should all support: and is why I have set up this blog. His open letter to Michael Gove, still unanswered to the best of my knowledge, raises such important questions, and is posted [...]

Something’s got to Gove | Matthew Taylor's blog on Mon, 18th Jan 2010 4:56 pm


[...] brings me to the most exciting news of the day: Michael Gove has replied to my July questions. Maybe now he has published his education manifesto I have finally, albeit momentarily, moved to [...]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!