A letter to the Daily Telegraph which was published on 28th July 1994.

Nothing more greatly exposes the contentless verbiage of Tony Blair for what it is than Labour’s new policy statement on education (report, July 27th).  Declaring that “mediocrity and decline can no longer be tolerated”, it goes on to announce measures which will remove the last vestiges of international standards from our schools.

Few British people seem to realise how pathetic an examination the GCSE is in the key subjects.  As Ray Sherlock showed (In My View, July 20th), GCSE mathematics has been gutted of virtually everything recognisable as mathematics.

Labour’s proposal for abolishing A-levels and replacing them by a so-called General Certificate of Further Education, directly related to GCSE, will complete the destruction of school mathematics, physics and chemistry, long sought by the ignorant egalitarians who advise Labour politicians.

If Mr Blair took the trouble to see what actually passes for further education in this country, he would see that the constant prattle about vocational education merely deflects attention frm the school’s abject failure properly to teach the bulk of our children the foundation elements of any education – the three Rs.

For an industrial country, no subjects are more vocational than mathematics, physics and chemistry, but only a minority of young people can do them – which is why Labour wants to destroy them.

A letter to the Daily Telegraph which was published on 22nd August 1991.

It is not true, as implied by your editorial (Aug. 16th) and John Clare’s report to say that the A-level results this year indicate a turning away from maths, physics and from chemistry.

Although the number of entries to these subjects has fallen from last year, the number of 18 year-olds has fallen even further because of the disastrous decline of the birth rate in the 1970s.  Thus expressed as a percentage of the number of 18 year-olds in our population, the proportion sitting A-level maths this year is higher (at 9.6 per cent) than last year (9.5 per cent), and the percentage of the age group actually passing maths this year is 7.2 percent against 7 per cent last year.  Physics and chemistry similarly show an increase in the proportion of the age group sitting and passing at A-level.

The number of 18 year-olds will continue to fall year by year up to 1995.  The number of science A-level entries can thus be predicted to continue to fall, accompanied no doubt by criticism of the exams as “too narrow” or “uninspiring”.

The truth is that only a minority of this or any country’s population has the interest and ability to study these subjects at advanced and university level.  However, if you increase the proportion of the age group taking A-levels, it is quite inevitable that the increase will be taken up in expanding the numbers taking subjects such as social sciences and business studies, where it is easier to pass.  This effect will then be misrepresented as a shift from science.

A letter to the BBC Radio4 “PM Programme” which was read out as part of “PM letters” in July 1990.

Your item today announcing that academics and educationalists preferred so-called “balanced science” to teaching physics and chemistry, begs the question as to who these academics are.  I believe I speak for many academics in science and engineering who view “balanced science” with horror.  Physics and chemistry are difficult and demanding disciplines and as such are the foundations of modern science and technology.  “Balanced science” on the other hand is in danger of becoming a hoch-potch of ideas which will leave the average and below average pupil knowing nothing of any real use.

Just as bad, “balanced science” will deny the abler child the opportunity to learn properly the great laws of science, thus completely undermining A-levels, which of course is many educationalists’ fervent wish.  Parents should demand that their schools offer physics and chemistry as separate subjects and not be fobbed off with the specious arguments of educational advisers, few if any of whom have a proper qualification in science anyway.