As Northern Ireland, through the DUP Education Minister Paul Givan, faces the prospect of a programme of radical education reform (widely parodied by opponents as a “Cut and Paste” job akin to the 2010-14 “Gove Reforms” in England), England appears set to ‘row back’ from Gove. A case of ‘one step forward, two steps back’ !
Below, in the first of two articles, Mark Langhammer considers the merits of the Gove education reforms in England. He will set out the Givan reforms in next month’s Irish Political Review.
One of the stellar ‘cited achievements’ of the Conservative/Liberal Coalition Government formed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010 was the reform of education. Michael Gove was Education Secretary from 2010 to 2014, and his reforms were among the biggest changes to English education since the 1988 Education Reform Act. The Gove reforms were driven by a blend of conservative, market-oriented, and traditionalist educational ideas rather than a single ideology.
Gove unleashed the most significant change to the structure of the education system in decades by allowing all schools to convert from Local Authority control to Academy (or ‘Free-school’) status with additional autonomy. Academies are publicly funded, independent schools that operate outside the control of local authorities, contracting directly with central government.
The main tenets of the reforms were:
• School Autonomy and Market Competition: A central belief was that schools would improve if they had greater independence from local authorities. Or, in the lingo of the day, “freeing schools from the dead hand of local government”! This led to the rapid expansion of Academies and the creation of Free Schools, giving school leaders more control over budgets, staffing, and the curriculum. The underlying idea—in theory—was that autonomy, diversity, and competition would drive higher standards.
• Traditional Academic Knowledge: Gove argued that English education had become insufficiently rigorous. He favoured a “knowledge-rich curriculum”, based on the ideology of US education ‘guru’ E.D Hirsch, Professor Emeritus of the University of Virginia and Chair of the Core Knowledge Foundation. Emphasising traditional academic subjects such as history, literature, mathematics, sciences, and foreign languages, his reforms sought to increase the intellectual challenge of exams and curricula.
• Meritocracy and Social Mobility: An important theme was that disadvantaged pupils were being failed by the education system. Gove contended that children from poorer backgrounds deserved access to the same demanding academic curriculum as wealthier pupils. He presented higher standards and greater academic rigour as instruments of social justice and social mobility.
• International Competitiveness: Gove frequently compared England’s educational performance with high-performing systems, particularly in East Asia/Pacific Rim. He argued that raising standards was necessary to ensure the UK’s future economic competitiveness. Concerns about England falling behind internationally helped justify curriculum and examination reforms.
• Scepticism of Progressive Education: Many of Gove’s speeches and policies reflected criticism of ‘progressive’ educational approaches that emphasised skills, creativity, or child-centred learning over subject knowledge. His reforms generally favoured explicit teaching of core knowledge, stronger discipline, and more demanding assessment.
The ideology behind Gove’s reforms could be described as “neo-conservative educational reform“: combining market mechanisms (autonomy and school choice) with traditional academic values (knowledge, rigour, discipline, and examinations), all justified by goals of raising standards, improving social mobility, and increasing international competitiveness.
Main Reforms: The main reforms instituted by Gove were:
1. The Expansion of Academies and the Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), which ‘managed’ academy-grouped schools.
2. Curriculum Reform: The Introduction of a “knowledge-rich” curriculum with greater emphasis on traditional academic subjects, especially history, literature, mathematics, science, and languages.
3. GCSE and A-Level Reform, with reduced coursework in many subjects, an increased reliance on final exams, and more demanding GCSE specifications with a new grading system (later implemented as 9-1 grades).
4. English Baccalaureate, which promoted a set of core academic subjects: English, Maths, Science, History or Geography and a Modern Foreign Language, on the French model.
5. Teacher Training Changes: reduced the emphasis on university-based teacher training, whilst expanding school-led training, such as School Direct.
Some of Gove’s reforms worked, others failed, some spectacularly. So, What Worked?
• Some Stronger Academy Trusts and high-performing MATs succeeded in turning around struggling schools and provided better support, staff development, and shared services.
• Greater School Autonomy: provided School leaders with more freedom over staffing, budgets, and organisation. Supporters argue this encouraged innovation and faster improvement in some schools.
• Higher Academic Expectations: Supporters of the reforms contend that the level of challenge in exams and curriculum content was raised. Supporters believe this increased academic rigour and reduced concerns of grade inflation.
• Focus on Disadvantaged Pupils: Some academy chains achieved notable improvements in schools serving disadvantaged communities.
What Didn’t Work (or Remains Controversial)?
• Uneven Academy Performance: While some MATs performed very well, many did not add significant value. Accountability arrangements were often unclear. And, for every Academy ‘success’ in revitalising schools, there were many failures. As Professor Becky Francis, who led the 2025 English curriculum review, said: “There are a handful of trusts achieving amazing things, but a much longer tail of trusts performing really poorly”.
• Complex School System: The rapid expansion of academies created what the Institute for Government describes as a “dual system” involving both academies and Local Authorities, with overlapping responsibilities and confusion about accountability. This led to confusion and wastage.
• Narrowing of the Curriculum: Critics argue that the EBacc and emphasis on traditional academic subjects reduced uptake of creative, technical, and vocational subjects such as music and design technology. And, with school financial accountability tightened to the individual school level there was a widespread loss of non-academic school activities: notably sports, arts and drama. And many non-academic school facilities were sold off. School, for many, became unengaging, or boring!
• Heavy Exam Burden: The move towards terminal examinations increased pressure on students and reduced the role of coursework and alternative forms of assessment. Critics argue this encouraged memorisation over broader learning, promoted “teaching to the test”, and “rote learning”, with schools as narrow “exam factories” (Confederation of British Industries), ill-preparing pupils for the world of work!
• Mixed Evidence on System-Wide Improvement: Although some schools improved substantially, evidence is more mixed on whether academisation alone produced consistent improvements across the whole system, or whether xxxxxx [finish sentence]
• Pay and Recruitment Crisis: One overall effect was that Head Teachers’ pay, and that of some senior staff, rose exponentially—stratospherically in some cases! Meantime, the pay of many teachers stagnated, more teachers and staff were hired on temporary, fixed-term or precarious terms—leading to a recruitment crisis. Arguably, the appeal of teaching as a profession plummeted.
• Financial Crises: One effect was the regularity with which financial crises or contracting scandals became public news. The Westminster Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reported that tens of millions of pounds were used to “prop up” poorly managed Academy schools, with potentially excessive levels of pay. Some £325m was expended by Conservative Governments on 67 Free schools that either failed or disappeared. The Guardian reported on levels of corruption at Free Schools in 2018—and the Academy and free school ‘gravy train’ continued to be in the news regularly.
The biggest criticism is that the reforms created a fragmented and complex system, while the curriculum and exam changes arguably made education more academically rigorous but also narrower and more exam-focused, with “gaming the system”, “teaching to the test”, “duking the stats” ubiquitous.
Academies And Free Schools – the Politics
Arguably, the Gove reforms were a continuance of a longer trend of dilution of the role of Local Authorities in England.
Kenneth Baker’s 1988 Education Act introduced the “local management of schools” (which automatically devolved 90% of the schools budget to head-teacher level) in centrally-funded grant-maintained schools and City Technology Colleges. Schools were empowered to ‘opt out’ of Local Authority control.
The subsequent Blair Government abolished grant-maintained schools (though Tony Blair later regretted doing this) but was not motivated to return schools to Local Authority control: it created a half-way-house “foundation status”. Blair, through Andrew Adonis, initiated the notion of self-standing academies, modelled on the conservative-inspired City Technology Colleges. Initially designed to be high-profile ‘beacons’ in disadvantaged areas , funded centrally and run in partnership with businesses, the Academies were defined under Labour in legislation in 2000 and again in 2002. Because of Back-Bench disquiet, Labour’s 2006 Education Act was only passed with conservative support—allowing Cameron, on the schools issue, to don the mantle of “heir to Blair”. By the time Labour left Office, only 203 Academies remained [OUT OF HOW MANY??], so Michael Gove could reasonably claim his Academy and Free-School initiative was “continuity Blair”.
After the long period of Conservative rule, 2010-2024, Labour returned to Office under Keir Starmer, whose Government were not minded to divert course. However, under Burnham, there appears to be demand or ‘appetite’ to refresh Labour’s education policies.
Labour Minister, Lucy Powell appears to be considering moves to widen the scope of the curriculum “straightjacket” (away from Gove’s narrow ‘content’ strictures), tackle the problem of “NEETs” (those Not in Education, Employment or Training), reinvigorate Vocational Education and make schooling more engaging, more relevant to life and the modern economy. Powell may be assisted by the modest Review of Curriculum published under Professor Becky Francis in 2025. As yet, there is little clarity as to what Labour under Burnham and Powell intend to do (and vague ‘soundings’ might be all they do) but she has received ready ‘kickback’ from the Gove lobby as attacking “ambition” and “academic standards”.
It is unlikely that Labour could return schools to Local Authority control, not least because of the contractual complexity of the exercise. It would not be an understatement to categorise the Gove reform for Academies and Free-Schools as being similar to the Private Finance Initiative /Public-Private Partnership models of procurement brought in by the Conservatives before being super-charged under the Chancellorship of Labour’s Gordon Brown. For Burnham, the complexity of required change would represent a ‘two-term’ project and therefore impractical.
Things that Burnham could do might include introducing—
• An obligation on Academies and free-schools to agree their Admissions policies with the Local Authority;
• An obligation on Academies and free-schools to agree their Exclusion and Suspension policies with the Local Authority;
• A funding Review for schools;
• A Reinstatement of Social Partnership in Schools (initially agreed as a National Agreement between Education Secretary David Miliband and the Teachers’ Unions in 2003, led substantially at the time by Eamon O’Kane of the NASUWT);
• An acceptance/Reinstatement of National Negotiating machinery for the pay of teachers and education staff;
• Tackle the issue of Teacher Supply, including to make Labour’s proposed “technical pathways” for 14-16 year olds a success;
• An overhaul of exams for Special Educational Needs and Disadvantaged pupils.
Whatever Burnham, Powell and Labour do within school education, it is likely to be a mild, gentle ‘row-back’ from the activism and market orientation of Gove’s reforms. Oddly, at a time when Labour is minded to gently leave ‘Gove’ behind, the DUP Minister of Education in Northern Ireland is set to move in the opposite direction—to implement a version of the Gove Reforms, inspired by the same E.D. Hirsch / ‘Core Knowledge Foundation ideology’, in Northern Ireland.
Mark Langhammer
Part 2 of this article, will set out the proposed reforms in Northern Ireland.
Notes
PAC Report Tens of millions of public money used to “prop up” poorly managed academy schools with potentially excessive levels of pay – Committees – UK Parliament
67 Free Schools fail – Tory governments spent £325m on free schools that failed or disappeared | Free schools | The Guardian (not just Michaela)
See at The great academy schools scandal | Academies | The Guardian
Professor Becky Francis chaired the Curriculum and Assessment Review for England. The Review’s Interim Report (May 2025) and subsequent recommendations aimed to keep high standards while making the curriculum and assessment system broader, more inclusive, and better suited to modern needs. The main strands of the Interim Report are:
Key curriculum proposals
Retain a knowledge-rich curriculum, but refresh content to ensure it is engaging, ambitious, and relevant to modern society. [schoolsweek.co.uk]
Review and update all programmes of study, including improving representation of the diversity of modern Britain. [schoolsweek.co.uk]
Develop the national curriculum as a digital product to make it easier for teachers to navigate and use. [schoolsweek.co.uk]
Provide stronger support for pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) through evidence-based curriculum adaptation guidance. [schoolsweek.co.uk]
Increase emphasis on oracy (speaking and communication skills) through a national framework. [schoolsweek.co.uk]
Key assessment proposals
Review high-stakes accountability measures and assessment arrangements to reduce unnecessary burden. [assets.pub…ice.gov.uk], [schoolsweek.co.uk]
Proposed changes included:
o Replacing the KS2 grammar, punctuation and spelling (GPS) test.
o Introducing Year 8 diagnostic assessments in English and maths.
o Reducing total GCSE exam time by around 10%.
o Reforming performance measures, including recommendations around the EBacc. [schoolsweek.co.uk]
Wider aims of the review
The review identified four major priorities:
1. Delivering high standards for all pupils.
2. Addressing subject-specific challenges.
3. Responding to social and technological change.
4. Ensuring post-16 pathways work for all learners. [dsga.org.uk]
