Michael Gove’s curriculum proposals show that he is a truly conservative Education Secretary

The Department for Education’s consultation on proposed changes to the National Curriculum closes today. The outcome of the National Curriculum forms the basis for the content of teaching and learning in schools across the country. It is compulsory for all maintained schools, and academies and free schools must have regard to it in shaping their own curricula. Hence, this is an important policy lever for government to shape education.

It is concerning therefore that Michael Gove’s proposals have been lambasted by subject specialists, education leaders and the business world.

Take the draft History curriculum for example. Princeton Professor Sir David Cannadine said that the draft programme of study is ‘prescriptive, narrow and Anglocentric’.

Astonishingly, there is no mention of climate change for children up to the age of 14 in the drafts for geography.

Leading voices in the world of business have slammed the plans, with Sir Richard Branson calling for a rethink. He argues that we need a curriculum that promotes enterprise education. He is absolutely right. Dick Olver, chairman of E4E, a leading voice in UK engineering, has said that the design and technology proposals do ‘not meet the needs of a technologically literate society’.

According to Russell Hobby – the leader of the National Association of Head Teachers – the Education Secretary has ‘frequently overlooked’ the professionalism of school leaders throughout the process of developing his plans.

Let us not forget that Michael Gove’s own advisors on the National Curriculum – appointed by him – have distanced themselves from his proposals.

Narrow, backwards looking and half baked. That’s the message in response to his National Curriculum.

In a speech defending his plans, Michael Gove said that ‘the acquisition of knowledge is the key to social mobility’. This is his one guiding principle behind his changes. Here he misses a crucial point. Yes, knowledge forms part of the bedrock of education but there is more we need from a curriculum for the future. Skills and character development are also crucial ingredients and must be integral to any curriculum reforms, if we are to address social mobility.

What do we mean by skills and character? For me it means educating children and young people about speaking and debating skills; on the attributes of leadership and resilience and instilling within them the confidence to exhibit these behaviours as citizens and in the world of work; and challenging them to be inquiring, independent and critical thinkers.

It means equipping young people so that they can play their part. That’s how we get to a society in which we place power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few.

Reforming the National Curriculum provides a real opportunity for radical transformation of the content and type of education our children receive across the state system. But Michael Gove has shown he favours conservatism over radicalism.

He too has undermined the very people responsible for delivering education- heads and teachers. It is a commonly used analogy but one that resonates. Ministers would not prescribe to surgeons on how best to conduct their practices. Nor should Ministers disregard the professional judgements of education professionals. By failing to consult and engage meaningfully with the education profession, Michael Gove has done a disservice to children and the professionals who serve them.

Placing emphasis only on knowledge- and on chunks of knowledge prescribed by Ministers- is not the right approach. It is right that all young people should form a strong basis of knowledge, especially in maths and English.

For too long, the focus on character development has been the preserve of those in private education.

Increasingly though many state schools are leading the way. Take for example the truly comprehensive School 21 in Newham, East London, where I visited recently. There, character development is as important as knowledge development. The school leadership is uncompromising on both fronts. It is not alone. North Liverpool Academy in the city where I am a MP is doing great work in this respect. As is the brilliant Mulberry School for Girls in Tower Hamlets.

In these fantastic schools and many others, heads and teachers are taking the lead and using the curriculum freedoms available to them to equip their young people for the jobs and societal challenges of the 21^st century. Michael Gove should take heed. By harking back to a curriculum of old- in which rote learning is the only guiding principle- he is missing a real opportunity to radically transform the National Curriculum into one that is forward looking and that will play a part in addressing social mobility in this country.

Stephen Twigg MP is the Shadow Education Secretary