Education Policy or Ideological Vandalism? The Secretary of State’s Misguided War on Schools

Education reform—the great British tradition of repeatedly dismantling something that was just starting to work. Like an apprentice chef fiddling with a soufflé they don’t understand, the new Education Secretary has entered the kitchen, poked the rising mixture with a ladle, and now seems confused as to why it’s collapsing before their eyes.

Enter Katharine Birbalsingh, headmistress of Michaela Community School, wielding a letter so blistering it could be used to strip paint. In it, she lays out, with forensic clarity, the litany of baffling, ideologically driven decisions that now threaten to unravel 15 years of educational progress for disadvantaged children. And she does so while offering a polite but pointed refrain: “What problem are you actually trying to solve?”

Cancelling Latin Grants: The Easiest Way to Keep the Poor in Their Place

We begin with the axing of grants that allow disadvantaged children to study Latin—a decision as bizarre as banning umbrellas in a downpour. It’s difficult to fathom how anyone, even in the most desperate reaches of the Treasury, could look at a modest pot of funding designed to give poor kids access to a subject historically reserved for the elite and think: “Yes, this must go.”

And yet, here we are. Just months before their exams, pupils across the country have discovered their schools can no longer afford their Latin teachers. Presumably, this policy was devised over a boozy lunch, where someone declared: “Do you know who really has it too easy? Underprivileged children learning declensions.”

Had the Secretary of State simply waited until summer to swing the axe, at least these children could have finished their GCSEs. But no—policy must be enacted with maximum chaos, ensuring school leaders scramble to plug the gaps while the Department for Education mumbles something about “prioritisation.”

Curriculum Control: A Bureaucratic Stranglehold in the Name of ‘Progress’

Then there’s the Secretary’s vision for a national curriculum so rigid it could be used as scaffolding. The new plan seeks to strip schools of the freedom to tailor learning to their pupils’ needs, replacing it with a one-size-fits-none straitjacket.

Birbalsingh makes the obvious point: schools differ. Some have intakes full of children who would benefit from Latin. Others would be better served by extra maths, coding, or even practical skills. But in Whitehall, one curriculum must rule them all. Any hint of entrepreneurial thinking from teachers? Stamped out.

This is Soviet-level central planning, where a school in Newcastle must follow the same prescriptive guidelines as one in Surrey, because some distant official in Westminster believes a “monotonous programme of learning” is the way forward. God forbid school leaders be trusted to know what’s best for the children they actually teach.

Teacher Hiring: Let’s Make the Recruitment Crisis Worse!

As though determined to test the limits of lunacy, the Secretary also plans to prevent schools from hiring unqualified teachers and training them on the job—a restriction that is both unnecessary and catastrophically ill-timed.

Britain is already desperately short of teachers. Schools are struggling to recruit. Many excellent educators—including those from industry, ex-servicemen, and career-changers—have entered the profession through alternative routes. Michaela, like many others, has successfully trained graduates who have gone on to leadership positions.

Now, the government has decided to slam the door shut, demanding that anyone who wants to teach must first navigate an expensive and convoluted qualification system before stepping into the classroom. The problem? Many won’t bother.

Imagine you’re a brilliant maths graduate considering a career in teaching. Before, you could be hired, trained on the job, and earning. Now? Go back to university, take on debt, and jump through bureaucratic hoops. Faced with that choice, they’ll simply take a well-paid job elsewhere, and the teaching crisis will worsen overnight.

Birbalsingh, sensibly, asks again: what problem was this meant to solve?

Uniforms: Whitehall’s Newest Battlefield

Not content with kneecapping recruitment, the government has also decided to interfere with school uniforms. Specifically, it wants to ban branded items—an idea which, like so many before it, is built on the premise that school leaders don’t understand their own pupils.

Birbalsingh’s response is simple: have you even asked us why we do this?

• Branded ties, blazers, and bags create a sense of belonging, reducing peer pressure and social divides.

• Branded school uniforms allow teachers to maintain standards—preventing boys from sagging their trousers and girls from being pressured into tight, revealing outfits.

• Schools already provide second-hand uniforms at a fraction of the cost, ensuring affordability.

But Whitehall knows best, apparently.

If the same logic were applied to sports, England’s football team would be forced to wear unbranded shirts to prevent “discrimination” against fans who can’t afford official kits. Try selling that to the FA.

Academy Pay: A Clever Way to Cut Teacher Salaries While Pretending Not To

And finally, the Secretary is pushing new laws that will restrict academy pay freedoms—a move so counterproductive it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of how academies operate.

Many academies already pay teachers more than national pay scales by making savings elsewhere. They offer performance-related incentives, reward experienced staff, and compete for top talent.

This new bill would end all that, forcing all schools back into a rigid salary structure where performance, innovation, and school finances count for nothing.

The result? Pay stagnation, demotivation, and an exodus of the best teachers. Once again: what problem was this supposed to solve?

A Secretary Who Won’t Listen

Perhaps the most galling part of all this is that the Secretary doesn’t seem interested in learning.

When asked in the Commons to congratulate Michaela on its record-breaking Progress 8 scores, she refused. Not because the achievement wasn’t remarkable—it was—but because, seemingly, she dislikes what Michaela represents.

Birbalsingh’s crime? Running a no-nonsense school that values discipline, high standards, and traditional teaching—exactly the sort of institution that delivers social mobility for poor children.

It’s telling that Labour’s education strategy is built on dismantling the freedoms that have allowed schools like Michaela to succeed. When confronted with international evidence that England’s schools have risen dramatically in global rankings, the response isn’t pride—it’s to undo the policies that got them there.

An Invitation, and a Challenge

Birbalsingh invites the Secretary to visit Michaela, or any successful school that has benefitted from academy freedoms. Not just to nod and smile, but to see firsthand what actually works for disadvantaged children.

Better yet, she challenges the Secretary to a public debate—to discuss, openly, what works for social mobility.

Will the invitation be accepted? Of course not. That would require a willingness to engage with evidence, to question ideological assumptions, and to listen to the people actually running schools.

But for now, one thing is clear: if this government continues down its current path, the losers won’t be politicians. It won’t be ministers, civil servants, or policy advisers.

It will be the children who relied on these policies to escape poverty—the very children this government claims to champion.