Michael gove

Labour and the teachers' unions have had their way: there is going to be an official inquiry into the GCSE results. The exams regulator Ofqual is only investigating the English results, though, saying there are 'questions about how grade boundaries were set in a very small number of units across the year'. In a letter to the National Association of Head Teachers, Ofqual chief regulator Glenys Stacey wrote: 'We recognise the continuing concerns among students, parents and teachers about this year's GCSE English results. We will look closely at how the results were arrived at. We will do this quickly, but thoroughly, so that we ensure confidence is maintained in our examinations system.

The Olympics may be over, but the political row over school sports fields is set to rumble on into the autumn. Stephen Twigg today announced that Labour will force a vote on the matter when the Commons returns in September. His motion will demand that the government restore a minimum space requirement for outdoor space in schools. It does take some chutzpah for Twigg to launch this attack, given Labour managed to approve the sale of 42 playing fields in just one year, which is twice the number sold off since the coalition came to power. The Education department insists that of the 21 that have been signed off for sale, 14 belonged to schools that closed, and four were surplus to requirements after existing schools merged.

David Cameron has not sought to seek personal or political capital from the Olympics, for which he deserves much credit. It doesn't take much to imagine how Gordon Brown would  have behaved had he been in power. But this is politics, Cameron is under pressure to establish an "Olympic Legacy" so he will today announce two hours of competitive sport every week in schools. In so doing, he highlights the contradiction in his education policy. On one hand, he wants to devolve power to schools and get politicians out of the education process. But like his predecessors, he also can't resist pulling the levers of power and telling head teachers what to do.

I have been waiting more than two years for this government to say or do something really radical. By this I don’t mean taking the Blairite revolution to its logical conclusion (or is it reductio ad absurdum?) by introducing pseudo-markets deeper into every area of the public sector and reforms to the welfare state New Labour certainly considered but never dared to carry out. But what was genuinely counter-intuitive for the Labour Party is not necessarily so for the Conservatives. For Tony Blair to embrace the private sector, distance himself from the trade unions and challenge the received wisdom of Labour’s state-ism was a genuine break with the past. For David Cameron to do so is merely to embrace tradition.

This morning at our Schools Revolution conference, Michael Gove came under sustained attack from academies architect Lord Adonis and Neil O'Brien from Policy Exchange, who pointed to a slowing-down in the number of primary sponsored academies being set up. O'Brien pointed out that the majority - around 80% - of academies set up under Gove are actually failing schools converting to academy status rather than new schools with a sponsor. Adonis told the audience that Gove's success on academies was illusory' because of the decline in the number of sponsored academies. But I hear that Gove is going to directly address these criticisms in his speech this afternoon.

Labour's Opposition day debate tomorrow on Gove-levels might not reveal as much as the party hopes about where Liberal Democrat MPs stand on the Education Secretary's planned reforms. True, you won't see a Lib Dem lift so much as a finger in outright support of what Nick Clegg dubbed 'a two-tier system' created by scrapping GCSEs and replacing them with two sets of exams, but this might not be the forum for them to launch a rebellion. One key figure on the left of the party points out that 'it's not where the decision will be made', while another MP says Labour's motions are often so 'over-the-top' that they are unsupportable.

The Spectator's Schools Revolution conference is being held on Tuesday next week. One of the special guest speakers, Lord Adonis, here gives the present government three lessons gained from his experience of the academies programme. Other speakers include Michael Gove, Michelle Rhee and Barbara Bergstrom, all of whom will take questions from the floor. There are still tickets available. Last year Mossbourne Academy in Hackney celebrated one of the most remarkable achievements ever recorded by a state comprehensive school with a largely low-income intake. It got eight students into Cambridge and another 70 into Russell Group universities. If every comprehensive was in this league, social mobility would take off and England’s class barriers come crashing down.

Michael Gove’s name is being muttered in parliamentary tea rooms, figuratively at least. The leak of his plans to replace GCSEs with a rigorous exam is opium to many Tories. Gove is well liked on the backbenches and within the party. And he also commands respect, being one of the few ministers who is not mired in catastrophe, although that may change as the pressure on primary school places increases and his opponents gain in voice. Odds on a Gove leadership are shortening, even though Gove is adamant that he does not seek the office. Even so, there might be overwhelming demand for him to stand.

Michael Gove's plan to scrap GCSEs and replace them with a beefed-up O-Level are, as Brother Blackburn observed earlier, threatened by the Conservatives' coalition partners. It seems quite probable that Gove's proposals will be watered down following the usual "consultation" with the Liberal Democrats. This will, understandably, vex Tories. Gove's proposals have considerable merit even if, as always, the advantages of his plans are (partially) offset by their drawbacks. As successive governments have discovered it is difficult to build an education system that is demanding, universal and equitable. There must be winners and losers and the argument is chiefly about defining those terms.