Bypassing the Bard

The demise of Shakespeare in schools, evidenced by a fall off in demand at the RSC, is an entirely predictable outcome of the Government's decision to scrap Key Stage 3 tests. In many schools, the only reason the Bard was taught to less able pupils under 14 was because of its place on the curriculum and in the tests. Teachers believe they are exercising their professional judgment that a significant proportion of pupils find Shakespeare too difficult. For years, the curriculum authority had been trying to ditch this test but were resisted by successive secretaries of state.

But it was to ensure that everyone was exposed to England's greatest playwright that the National Curriculum gave his works such prominence. Those who demanded the demise of the tests - including the Schools Select Committee - should have understood this. The question we need to decide is whether every pupil should have an entitlement to certain subjects and experiences. By scrapping the Shakespeare test along with other KS3 tests, the decision was also effectively made to downgrade Shakespeare in schools. The only surprise is that the architects of this decision should be so surprised.

Celebrating talent

Andrew Adonis, the schools minister, has started the new year well with his plan to publish the achievements of the ablest students at Key Stage 3 in the annual performance tables. Secondary heads' leader, John Dunford of the ASCL, grumbles that schools don't really take the tests at 14 seriously. But with English and Maths now properly recorded in GCSE tables, they are increasingly going to do so. So, combining them with the gifted and talented programme is surely the sort of joined-up thinking of which he ought to approve?

Setting standards

Michael Gove, the shadow children's secretary, has just been on the radio repeating some fairly tired Tory theories about the problems with secondary school teaching. Gove contends that a 1% point fall in Maths at Key Stage 3 this year (after a 3% point rise last year, and a 16% point - equivalent to over 25% more pupils making the grade since his lot were in power) has two main reasons: a fall-off in standards after initial success in 1997-2000; and a failure to set in maths. Actually he is wrong on both counts. While it is true that KS2 results - tests at 11 - improved fastest in Labour's early years, improvements at KS3 - for 14 year-olds - have been fastest since 2001, partly because Labour introduced a KS3 strategy then. And while fewer than half of lessons are set, that is not the case in Mathematics, as John Dunford has pointed out, where more lessons - three-quarters - are set than in any other subject. The truth is that, as with KS2, there are plenty of schools that make the grade, and others with similar pupil profiles that don't. Only when the straggling schools make their targets and achievement as strong as the successes will we see the national improvements we need - and their pupils deserve. And for teaching the KS3 strategy - as opposed to GCSE or A level maths - this has nothing to do with whether or not the teachers are pure maths graduates.