Michael Gove has come back from the US with a laudable, but badly formulated, idea that "our children should be reading 50 books a year". Gove is a passionate advocate for excellence in music and literature, but this is silly. Well-intentioned, but utterly wrong-headed. Anyone with children will know that.

Does the secretary of state for education seriously expect British schoolkids to read a book a week? I wonder: how many new books has Gove read this year? According to the Gove Quotient, it should now be 12 – and rising. (I don't count browsing.)

Of course our kids should read more (and better), but cramming them like force-fed battery geese is no way to promote the idea of reading as a lifelong joy. Reading should be a private pleasure. Children should be encouraged to try different kinds of book. To browse the shelves of the library (assuming it has not been closed). Reading for personal satisfaction and fulfilment should take place at whatever speed works best for them.

Actually, if a child only read a single volume of Philip Pullman or Jacqueline Wilson, and read it obsessively all year, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad outcome.

Forced learning in literature is a mistake. How many UK schoolkids have had Shakespeare ruined for them by dogmatic pedagogy? And, while we're at it, which books would he be recommending? If schools were to adopt this eccentric proposal, what 50 titles should they start with?

Of course we should raise expectations, and promote excellence, but we should do it in a humane and literate way. Mr Gove is in danger of becoming Mr Gradgrind.

What do you think?