Michael Gove's GCSE U-turn is a reprieve for second chances

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/michael-gove-gcse-u-turn

Version 0 of 1.

How cheering to see Michael Gove's English Baccalaureate Certificate go up in flames – and not just because the EBC was hopelessly thought out. Put simply, GCSEs are a good thing. I was brought up in the era of O-levels, 16-pluses and CSEs – not a two-tier system as it is usually called, but a three-tier system.

The 16-plus was like the GCSE in that you could get anything from the highest O-level pass to the lowest CSE pass in the one exam. Comprehensive schools, such as the one I attended (the brilliant Kersal High, which sadly had to close) opted for the 16-plus whenever it could because it was fairer. But the great divide was between those who took O-levels and those who took CSEs. You didn't do CSEs, you were consigned to them. And being consigned to CSEs left you a second-class citizen at 14.

With one stroke, the GCSE removed this. A struggling child might work his or her way to an A-C, or a smart but distracted pupil might drift down to a lower grade. The important thing was that the outcome was not predetermined before you started the course.

Gove wanted to abolish this, seemingly because he believes by the age of 14 our destiny is sorted; we know who is boss class and pleb class, rulers and ruled, and it's daft to pretend otherwise.

But, of course, for any society that aspires to being a meritocracy this is nonsense. Children develop at different ages and in different ways. Who's to say there's any more merit in excelling in history than computer studies? (Actually, the market place would suggest the opposite.)

Which takes us to his bigoted desire to narrow the curriculum. The function of any education system is to prepare as many people as possible for a successful future. Gove seems to want the opposite.

I have known many academic children over the years, including my older daughter. Never have I heard them say, "Ah, if only the curriculum were narrower would life be more fulfilling?" The fact that there is a broad curriculum means there is every opportunity to excel in traditional academic subjects, should they so wish, while allowing others to succeed in different subjects.

I have also known many children who struggle academically. My younger daughter is on the autistic spectrum. We were told when she was young that she was unlikely to pass exams. However, she carefully chose her GCSE subjects (including IT, drama, food technology – yes, those that Gove despises), worked extremely hard and passed her GCSEs. A brilliant success. Her overly ambitious comprehensive school were not keen for her to go on to A-levels (they asked for five Bs) but we insisted she had the right to. Again, she carefully chose subjects, worked hard and passed her A-levels. Another brilliant success. She scraped her way into university, where she is now thriving.

Just today I received an email from a friend who said that his son struggled his way into university with a D and an E in business studies, now works for Apple and jets off to California every time they do a product launch. My friend concluded: "He wouldn't get into university now … so would end up doing what, I wonder?"

The list is endless of those who struggled and went on to change the world. Bill Gates, Charles Dickens, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, all dropped out of school and were given a second chance (partly because academic achievement wasn't seen as the be-all).

The system Gove proposed was one that denies second chances. Worse than that, it denied first chances – the plan was that pupils who did not complete an EBC were to leave school with a "statement of achievement" rather than an actual qualification.

Yes, Einstein et al are the freaks. But that's not the point. Success is always relative. Whatever my daughter does with her life now, she has made a success of it. If Gove had had his way she would have been kicked into touch at 14.