Michael Gove Ideological Reform

Put it this way, there is a reason why everyone hates him.

I'm taking an exam on education policy for A2 politics and have a feeling they may ask something on Michael Gove's reforms. I have compiled quite a few together; E.G. no january exams, curriculum reform etc. but if anyone knows any others please share! The more I have the better!

Also, what do you think about them? Do you think they are his attempt at an ideological stamp on education policy? Or do you think they are a pragmatic solution to the failing standards of education? Do you like him? Don't you?

haha yes but he would argue that no-body likes change so that's unsurprising!

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but the reason I loathe him personally is Gove trying to paint out that hes a maverick rather messiah to the education system. The system has been failing students for years now, what does Gove do? Talk about bs changes yet again, true, there are issues with the system as it is that need attention, but there are bigger issues still like institutional racism that need sorting, elitism etc as these are issues overlapping both education and the subsequent impossible job scene that people finishing education have to deal with, Gove chooses to ignore those elephants in the room. I mean come on, some schools are genuinely trying to retain a sense of traditional education ie prepare their students for later life by means of an education, this is a hard enough task as it is without conforming to Gove's ideals.

You're talking bile. Institutional racism and, what was the other one, "elitism" (though we may share some agreement there), are not the hot topics in education.

Michael Gove is a highly successful reformer, which is why all the 'vested interests' (read: unions) dislike him so.

There are aspects to his reforms I disagree with, some strongly, but to just write him off because it's fashionable helps no one.

Have you considered some of the stuff within curriculum reform, such as teaching British history etc.? I forget where I read it, but there was also something about him de-emphasising Social Sciences. Don't forget academies, studio schools and free schools as well, and his (now thwarted) attempts to bring back a two-tier system akin to O-levels and CSEs.

Do you mind if I also ask you what exam board you are on? It's just that I have an A2 Politics exam soon, too.



I actually really like most of what he is doing. However, I think scrapping January exams is as far as it should go, and it would be wrong to scrap AS. I also object to the idea of free schools - basically state-funded independent schools. Also, I know it doesn't matter in terms of politics, but he actually is a really nice person!

How can you strongly disagree with things he does but say he is a highly successful reformer? Unless you mean because he gets reforms through without bowing to criticism - which could be seen as a negative?

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but the reason I loathe him personally is Gove trying to paint out that hes a maverick rather messiah to the education system. The system has been failing students for years now, what does Gove do? Talk about bs changes yet again, true, there are issues with the system as it is that need attention, but there are bigger issues still like institutional racism that need sorting, elitism etc as these are issues overlapping both education and the subsequent impossible job scene that people finishing education have to deal with, Gove chooses to ignore those elephants in the room. I mean come on, some schools are genuinely trying to retain a sense of traditional education ie prepare their students for later life by means of an education, this is a hard enough task as it is without conforming to Gove's ideals.

haha yes but he would argue that no-body likes change so that's unsurprising!

You're talking bile. Institutional racism and, what was the other one, "elitism" (though we may share some agreement there), are not the hot topics in education.

Michael Gove is a highly successful reformer, which is why all the 'vested interests' (read: unions) dislike him so.

There are aspects to his reforms I disagree with, some strongly, but to just write him off because it's fashionable helps no one.

How can you strongly disagree with things he does but say he is a highly successful reformer? Unless you mean because he gets reforms through without bowing to criticism - which could be seen as a negative?