 The political dividing lines in education have never been entirely consistent. attitudes to public investment and to selection have remained cornerstones of party differences, but, as Labour championed the academies programme with its private sector partnerships and the Conservatives talk about closing the social class achievement gap, each party encroaches on the other's traditional territory.  as the government moves from words to actions and the Labour policy review concludes, I've no doubt that the direction of each party will become clearer and the differences between them sharper. There are some early signs of at least part of the upcoming battle ground.  Given the importance the parties place on teaching quality and school leadership, the political debate surprisingly centres on what we teach not how we teach. Even before its curriculum review reports, the government has abandoned vocational diplomas and vocational equivalence qualifications; launched the English baccalaureate and dropped subject specialisms. In response, the shadow education secretary, andy Burnham, has firmly positioned Labour against the English bac and in favour of a broader curriculum.  Three questions seem to shape this debate. First, which subjects are relevant - should science and design be favoured over Latin and ancient history? Second, which subjects are more likely to engage a generation used to multimedia and personalised communication? Third, which subjects will give young people progression to top universities or good quality employment?  Relevance, engagement and progression are good questions to ask, but the political interpretation of them has created a rather old fashioned "traditionalist"/"progressive" divide.  Michael Gove's analysis seems to push him to a curriculum of yesteryear. He is passionate about history and Greek; he would go to the wall in favour of team games over individual sports but is not likely to defend sociology or drama - and I can't imagine the phrase, "cross curricular theme", passing his lips.  He defends an important principal of  