In the middle of the biggest teachers' dispute for some time, the headlines are suddenly full of the latest OECD report which, according to Michael Gove and his supporters, shows that Labour had an abysmal record in education, teachers are basically rubbish and - surprise, surprise - only he can save Britain's abandoned youth.

Do the OECD findings paint a clear picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the education system in England and Northern Ireland?

Probably not. More work needs to be done on what was being compared, what the findings mean in context and what the implications are for policy.

Do the OECD findings say what they are reported to say in the media?

Almost certainly not. There is always a tendency to knee-jerk reactions when a study like this is published, but, in the cold light of day, there is often a lot more than what is initially reported.

Do the OECD findings say what Gove claims they say?

Categorically not. Setting aside the big questions that need to be asked in terms of a thorough analysis of the findings, the methodology of the study and its implications for our education system, even a quick look at the results shows that the conc lusions drawn by senior Conservatives are, at best, a serious misunderstanding of the findings.

So, what does the survey say?

Well, young adults in England and Northern Ireland performed worse in basic numeracy and literacy skills than their peers in other developed countries.

In particular, when their performance was compared with that of those aged 55 to 65 in England and Northern Ireland, the latter group performed better at foundation levels of literacy and numeracy.

So, let's see what a simple comparison of these two groups tells us.

A quick bit of mental calculation - yes, even though I am only 33, I am capable of mental calculation! - tells us that those aged between 55 and 65 will have spent some time in compulsory secondary education between the years 1959 and 1974.

Those aged between 16 and 24 will have spent some time in compulsory secondary education between 2000 and 2013.

What will be the differences in their educational experience?

For the class of '59-'74, they were in school at a time of almost unprecedented educational upheaval.

This was the age of comprehensivisation. There was a growing movement, successful for a time, to give every child equality of opportunity in education and to bring together a fragmented education system for the benefit of the child. The tripartite system of education which divided children into secondary modern, technical or grammar schools, based on the 11-plus, was being abolished in favour of comprehensive schools which catered for all.

Of course, it was a vision of education which was never fully realised - and cannot be while 7 per cent of the population send their children to private schools - but this was the driving philosophy regarding school structure.

This was also the age of progressive education, when the Plowden report, published in 1967, reflected the dominance of approaches to education which recognised the importance of the child and rejected theories of rote learning in all phases of compulsory education. Classrooms were dynamic, exciting, creative.

Finally, this was a period in time where teachers were directly influencing policy in education.

Indeed, strange as it might seem now, the views of teachers on education were actually considered to be quite important when developing policy.

So, what about the generation of 2000-13? Well, like their counterparts, they have also been in school during a time of significant educational upheaval.

This is the age of academisation, fragmentation and "free" schools.

The state education system is being broken up into thousands of individuals schools, each competing with each other for "customers."

Choice is the watchword and the right of those who can exercise that choice to have something different from everyone else is far more important than equality of educational opportunity.

The role of local authorities in planning and managing school places and admissions has been abandoned in favour of a market system where schools compete for children and children compete for schools.

It is also the age of educational diktat from the centre. The DfE tells you what, and how, to teach and if you don't like it, they send in Ofsted to sort you out.

The idea that education should be about children has been replaced with numerical targets, rigorous hoop-jumping and that dreaded word - pace.

Never mind whether the children are keeping up with the lesson. As long as it's got plenty of pace...

Finally, this is the age where the "discourse of derision" - a term used by academic Stephen Ball to describe the constant attacks on teachers and teaching by the media and government - has reached fever pitch.

Opening a daily paper at random, you could be forgiven for thinking that teachers were some kind of curse on the education system whose main role was to impede the progress of children and that, as long as we could get rid of them all, our children would be doing fine.

Now I am sure there is a lot more to the OECD report than a simple comparison and I am sure there are valuable lessons to be learned from it.

But there is one thing I am also sure of and that is that it does not say what Gove and others would like it to say.

There is often an unhealthy tendency to hark back to a golden age when things were better, but, unfortunately, in this case, there just may be some truth to it.

We are bringing up the first generation whose life chances, employment opportunities, access to health and education and general standard of living will be lower than that of their parents.

Those to blame for this are the neoliberal architects behind the policies of both the current government and the new Labour government which preceded it.

Let's hope Ed Miliband and the Labour Party have something different to offer us come 2015.

Gawain Little is a member of the NUT national executive