In recent years, parents, employers and some teachers have grown increasingly suspicious of the figures in the annual school league tables, which appear to show an ever-greater number of GCSE passes in ever-higher grades. The more the Government trumpets the statistics as proof that its educational policies are producing measurable results, the more need there is to look closely at what is being measured. Ministers claimed yesterday that schools had made “the biggest single improvement in standards for a decade” after the proportion of students passing five good GCSEs rose by 2.6 percentage points. That figure is deeply misleading. If English and maths are included in the five subjects measured, the pass rate is 12 points lower, at only 44.3 per cent.

This is an appalling result. It means that more than half the pupils in Britain are not achieving even a reasonable competence in the two subjects essential to future employment. To allow schools to boast an ever-higher achievement by counting any or all of the soft options as part of the core five passes is deceptive. Employers do not want to take on school leavers who have an A-grade in information technology and a B in art but who can neither express themselves properly in their own language nor use figures with any degree of competence.

In fact, the figures for the bulk of the nation’s pupils are even worse. If the exam results from independent schools, which focus relentlessly on core subjects, are excluded, the percentage falls further, to 42 per cent. For boys the picture is even more dismal: only 37.8 per cent of those sitting English and maths last summer achieved a C grade or better.

The importance of English is hard to overstate. Research has shown that primary school leavers who fail to achieve the expected competence at the age of 11 find it almost impossible to catch up later or to prosper in a host of other subjects which depend on mastery of the language. Universities have long been so frustrated by the poor grasp of basic grammar among those beginning undergraduate courses that some have sent freshmen on compulsory remedial courses. Clearly, at undergraduate level, a student who cannot grasp the structure of the medium used for all instruction is severely handicapped. Even those beginning a job at 16 need to have the confidence to express themselves precisely and correctly.

One of the claims for the teaching of foreign languages is that it enhances the understanding of English. The recent sharp fall in modern languages in schools is unfortunate, and the news that some enterprising schools are making Chinese and other difficult languages compulsory does not compensate for widespread mediocrity. If standards of native English are falling so far behind even the levels of competence reached by French, German or Swedish pupils learning the language, Britain is right to fret. We boast that our language give us an inestimable inborn advantage in the global market place. It is time to learn and teach it properly.