The mistake was not to go for the nuclear option on free schools. All schools should be free schools, that is, independent schools where parents choose the school they feel is best for their child, and do everything rich parents do except actually pay the fees, which are funded by the State. It's not acceptable to assign a pupil to a school based on where he lives, or even give a parent a limited list of choices. Free schools actually liberate teachers. Teachers are constantly complaining about SMT. In a free system, any group of teachers can set up on their own, making the decisions about pay, pupil discipline, management style, curriculum, and so on themselves. That message never got through to the average teacher. In free markets there are usually far more providers chasing customers than customers chasing providers, so plenty of choice. Where a school is over-subscribed, or fussy about whom it will accept, some difficult decisions have to be taken. Saying "the school decides" would quickly create a selective system, though a university-style one, with an informal pecking order, rather than a binary grammar/secondary modern system. The binary system was uniquely awful, because no-one likes to be told there are two groups, and he's in the lower one. Allocating places by lot would totally prevent the emergence of high status, middle class schools, but it would act as a disincentive to improve the school - as soon as you show the first signs of success, you get swamped by parents who don't buy into your philosophy, but just want the benefits of what you've achieved. In reality there would probably have to be complicated rules, as at present.

Silly comments above. This is a piece of journalism, not a scientific study. Anecdotal evidence and a restricted number of examples are entirely appropriate to the form - as either of the commenters would know if they were English teachers. They also confuse admiration and agreement with sycophancy - a weird redefinition of that word - while failing to acknowledge the broad political consensus in favour of the Gove reforms which Peal describes. And if naming the three most important living writers on education is lazy, then so is naming Paris as the capital of France - if something is so overwhelmingly right as the work of Hattie, Willingham and Hirsch, then it stays right, no matter how often it is named or how often its (much lazier) opponents try desperately to discredit it.

An excellent summary by Tait Coles. On his blog I think Tait makes a most incisive observation when he refers to "sycophantic blathering". This comical mutual admiration network really do need to get a grip on reality, as Mr Gove has himself recently.

This article is sycophantic "twaddle"! Mr Gove is from the same mould as that man of intellectual integrity and moral probity, Mr Woodhead, and is as popular, which is why both were sacked. Piratization of everything, including education, is the goal of both Labour and Tory politicians, and it has been that way for decades. Pass the sickbag.

Looking past the grammatical errors (and there was I, believing the hype, that Teach First Ambassadors had advanced literacy levels compared to their inferior teaching colleagues!) I found this article almost comical in its own assertion that this was a valid critique of Gove’s tenure. “If you want a picture of English schools after thirteen years of Labour reforms…” apparently you should read just two books! Katharine Birbalsingh, Headmistress Designate at Michaela Community School, who has filled her ranks with Teach First Ambassadors, is the author of one. While the second book is written by a supply teacher called Charlie Carroll, who penned his opinions and experiences of inner city schools up and down the country during a year's supply work. Is Robert Peal (‘education research fellow’ at the right wing think-tank Civitas) really suggesting that we should evaluate “New Labour’s failure” based on the personal inadequacies of one supply teacher? This seems to be a recurring theme in Peal’s one-dimensional arsenal as he asked another to forward his book Progressively Worse (published by Civitas). As one reviewer on Amazon wrote: “The most impressive accomplishment of Robert Peal's book is its scope and how it enables the reader to interpret so much of what has happened in education, and what is still happening”, not bad for someone that has only taught for two years. The article, which the further you read sounds more like an obituary, suggests that Michael Gove’s: “speeches were informed by research at the forefront of the education debate”. It is not clear whose educational debate this is, or in fact, what the actual debate about education is. The lazy thinkers' go to names of Hattie, Hirsch and Willingham would indicate that this is a nod to the band of self-proclaimed educational research experts who promote teaching ‘truths’ and ‘rules’ supported by a very narrow selection of ‘evidence’. I have written about this previously here http://taitcoles.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/take-no-heroes-only-inspiratio... "He was a minister utterly on top of his brief” is supported by the claim that The Guardian’s Educational Editor Richard Adams once spotted the Secretary of State at 8am sitting at the back of a seminar making notes. Hardly rigorous evidence based research. Peel’s sycophantic blathering goes on to say that: “Gove's speeches showed a keen awareness of this work at the coalface” and then lists five ‘educators’; two of which, as far as I know, are not even currently teaching. All in all, a weak piece of persuasive writing filled with second hand anecdotes and riddled with nepotism. Still, it managed to be published in Standpoint, and as our popular and media hungry (he is already learning from his future boss, Toby Young) writer points out, one member of the magazine’s advisory board is a certain Mr. Michael Gove.