Department for Education Reform

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 853-i HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION REFORM WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY 2013 RT HON MICHAEL GOVE MP AND MR CHRIS WORMALD Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 -111 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Education Committee on Wednesday 23 January 2013 Members present: Mr Graham Stuart (Chair) Neil Carmichael Alex Cunningham Bill Esterson Siobhain McDonagh Ian Mearns Chris Skidmore David Ward Craig Whittaker ________________ Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education, and Mr Chris Wormald, Permanent Secretary, Department for Education, gave evidence. Q1 Chair: Good morning and welcome to this session of the Education Committee. It is a pleasure to have both the Permanent Secretary and the Secretary of State with us today. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Secretary of State, it has been another exciting, rollercoaster week in the world of education with yesterday’s announcements on reforms to A levels. Our focus today is on the running of the Department, but most of our focus in our inquiries has been on exams up to and before 16. I wonder if you could just briefly say something about the thinking behind your reforms to A level and AS level, in particular? Michael Gove: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here, and thank you for extending the invitation to the Permanent Secretary as well. Early in the lifetime of this Government I outlined what I hoped would be some of the reforms we could make to A levels. I had an opportunity to talk about them at the Sunday Times Festival of Education, with Anthony Seldon in the chair. What we wanted to do, then, was essentially to try to ensure that A levels—which are primarily but not exclusively, as you know, preparation for university education—give people a better preparation for the universities involved. I think we both share the aspiration that more students should go to university or at least have the option of doing so. It seemed to me that there were two significant ways in which we could improve things. One was to improve content and essentially make sure that both questions and the process of preparation for those examinations were influenced, to a greater extent than had been the case at least recently, by universities. Originally we proposed that the Russell Group themselves take control. The view from across the university sector, and indeed from the Russell Group themselves, was that they were flattered and wanted to play a part, but they did not want to bear exclusive responsibility. Therefore we struck what I thought was a good compromise, where the Russell Group organised subject experts from across the university field, and I hope that will be welcomed. 2 The second thing is that I was worried that there was too much assessment and too little learning. It seemed to me that one of the most effective ways in which we could encourage the sort of deep thinking that we want to have in people—who are not just going to go on to university, but who are going to enter an increasingly testing and sophisticated world of work—was to move towards a linear A level. There are certain gains, of course, in the flexibility that the AS level has given, so we did not want to abolish that. We thought that the best way forward was a standalone qualification. Q2 Chair: Before we move on, are you confident that, as a standalone qualification that is not an intrinsic component of the A level, people will continue to use it? Michael Gove: Yes, I think so. You may have seen floated elsewhere the idea that we should move towards a baccalaureate approach at 18. It is open to debate; no firm decisions have been taken by this Department, but one of the ideas that has been there, which I confess has attractions, is trying to make sure that you maintain balance post-16. Therefore I think there may well be some attraction in having an AS level—or indeed other qualifications—in, for example, English or mathematics, which students would take alongside the suite of A levels. A baccalaureate approach towards 16–18, in which we have an advanced baccalaureate that acknowledges both people taking what one might call “balancing subjects” and either undertaking an extended project or doing some form of citizenship or community work—or indeed both—might be worth doing. However, I am conscious of the fact that, having relieved teachers and students, I hope, of one burden for sixth formers, we do not immediately replace it with other things they might consider to be too burdensome. It is an area where we should seek to proceed with as much consensus as possible. Q3 Chair: As you have mentioned the bacc, the Government has said that it is minded towards having a tech bacc, not at 16, but at 18. Could you briefly tell us something about the thinking behind that? Michael Gove: Yes. At different times, the phrase “tech bacc” has been used to describe different concepts. What we were thinking about was having a baccalaureate qualification that recognised a high-level vocational qualification, plus English and maths, plus an element of work experience. You would need to have an English and maths qualification that was broadly equivalent to a GCSE, an improved GCSE or a successor examination, plus a high-level, level three vocational qualification, which was more than just a pass-fail qualification. Q4 Chair: Moving on to the running of the Department, The Spectator blog quotes an unnamed source at the Department, who he reported as saying that Tim Loughton, our colleague was, “a lazy, incompetent narcissist, obsessed only with self-promotion,” and accuses him of not acting professionally when in Government. This was not a leak but a comment from someone in the Department about a serving Member of Parliament and a former Minister. First of all, do you know who made that comment and gave that briefing? Michael Gove: I do not know who gave that comment; I do not know who gave that briefing. Briefly, if I can take the opportunity to say firstly, that Tim Loughton, far from being lazy, was an active and energetic Minister and remains an active and energetic advocate for children’s rights. Secondly, far from being incompetent, he was a talented and effective Minister, who made a difference. Far from being a narcissist, one of the things I found—and find—about Tim is that he has a good sense of humour and a capacity to laugh at both himself and the foibles of the political world. I am grateful that you have asked the question, as it gives me a chance to dissociate myself from it. 3 I do not know who said that. Let me emphasise again that it is wrong. Let me emphasise again that while I have said to you in the past that I try to face leaks, briefings and the necessary parts of political life with equanimity: on this occasion the person on the receiving end is someone who gave, and continues to give, distinguished public service. I think it is wrong that that briefing took place. Q5 Chair: It could be that your expressions of equanimity about things, from the leaking of the GCSE reforms to the Mail in the middle of last year and the rest of it, has encouraged people to feel that it is okay to do that. This was, unless we disbelieve the people at The Spectator, a briefing given from the Department under your leadership and control. Is it not incumbent upon you not simply to shrug your shoulders and talk about equanimity and the realities of political life but to do something about it? Michael Gove: I think that is a very, very fair challenge. If it is a briefing that either damages or disrupts the progress that I or other Ministers wish to make, then, as it were, we are on the receiving end. Therefore we can regard that with a degree of equanimity, or not. When it is someone else on the receiving end then it is someone else who is the victim. Therefore that is one of the reasons why I would condemn it, say that it was wrong, and I would say to everyone in the Department—and I know the Permanent Secretary would reinforce this—that that sort of behaviour helps no one. It takes us all away from the work we want to do. It is more than ungracious. It should not happen in politics. It does. I am trying to be realistic about it, but I also wanted to be clear that that is wrong, and you have given me the opportunity, which I am grateful to have, to state publicly, as I have within the Department, that what we want to do is to get on with the job.

Load more