G'day sport. The British are beating the Australians and the Lucky Country is amazed. Poms don't “medal”. They're the plucky underdogs or the whingeing Brits, depending how generous our cousins Down Under are feeling.

The Aussies don't like this new competitive streak. They accuse the British of excelling only at seated sports and of packing the teams with “toffs” who train by balancing champagne glasses on their hurdles.

But Bradley Wiggins learnt to win at Butlins and cycled around his grandparents' council estate, not their country estate. The British have begun to enjoy winning again. When the rower-turned-cyclist Rebecca Romero was asked where her determination came from, she said it was at school sports day when she was given a sticker for coming first.

Living to win is a huge gamble. For every Romero there is a Zara Phillips stuck at home because her horse fell ill during the trials, or a Paula Radcliffe trailing to 23rd in the marathon. But they too are on the international stage and this country's new ruthlessness in going after gold has been exhilarating for everyone after decades of Eddie the Eagle, Tim Henman and World Cup fiascos. Chris Hoy's thighs have consigned Atlanta's one gold medal to history.

Part of the reason that Britain is doing well is lottery funding, as Sir John Major said yesterday. But it's not everything. Athletics has received more money than cycling with less impressive results, despite yesterday's successes. In swimming, Rebecca Adlington struggled through, despite having to beg for goggles, because of the work ethic of her and her coach.

A change in mindset has made the difference: the motivation and professionalism of athletes and coaches to push every boundary, their obsession with technology and unsentimental approach to selection.

As one Danish cycling coach said of his British counterparts: “They are super-perfectionists.” Silver is no longer enough, as Katherine Grainger, of the women's quadruple sculls, proved by bursting into tears on the podium. Now it's about being the best; no one cares about your background, only your performance.

So why can't we repeat the experiment with academic education? When I was in India this summer with my eight-year-old son all people could ask him about was his grades. The newspapers were full of stories about exam results. Parents, schools and regions compete to be best and are constantly peering at China to check who produces the finest engineers and mathematicians.

In Britain, we don't care that we languish at 19th in the international league table for literacy. We have no plan to produce the next generation of Nobel prizewinners. We refuse to accept that every student can benefit from one child excelling. Unlike Ben Ainslie, who was determined to win gold despite having mumps, in education we are constantly making excuses.

In sport, Britain couldn't ask for the oars to be made larger or the swimming pools shorter, for races to be turned into continuous assessment for those who couldn't take the pressure. We had to accept that we must improve or drop down the medals table.

In education, we have done everything we can to make winning easier rather than getting down to the hard work of teaching our children properly. Exams have been devalued and pupils are no longer expected to know facts. Universities skew admissions to favour weaker candidates from more disadvantaged areas. Can you imagine the rower Mark Hunter being given a 20-metre start because he came from the East End rather than Eton?

Children with English as a second language shouldn't be seen as a drain; they should be brought up to speed as soon as they reach school and encouraged to use their multiple languages to compete internationally.

Schools should be expected to stretch pupils and allowed to instil rigour and discipline into their days. Sports coaches don't accept children who turn up late and mess around, whatever their background. The gymnast Louis Smith, from a Northamptonshire brick-making village, honed his skills after being told to do 200 circles on the pommel horse every time he played up.

It's not just ministers, universities and schools that need to change their mindset to encourage children to reach their potential. Parents are vital. Adlington's mother got up at 4am to drive her to a pool 25 miles away. Fewer parents now have the time or patience to read to their children or teach them their letters and their times tables.

I was talking to Lord Adonis, the Schools Minister, recently and he admitted: “There aren't nearly enough pushy parents.” He wants academies to become more aspirational, to take tips from the best private schools and to encourage excellence.

But Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, is dragging his feet. He believes one of his new diplomas in hairdressing to be worth three A levels, and is thinking about his own Westminster podium rather than realising that Britain has to compete globally.

You could never imagine him uttering the words of Tessa Jowell, the Olympics Minister, this weekend, when she said: “The biggest challenge is to be ruthless in funding success and not funding failure.”

In education successful schools are still penalised, while those that should be closed are propped up.

Gordon Brown loathes elitism in education. Scarred by being fast-tracked himself, he is obsessed with slowing everyone down. As Chancellor, he insisted that Laura Spence should go to Oxford University just because she came from a state school.

Sir John may have been derided for producing the cones hotline, but he has also helped to bring back the golds for Britain in 2008. Mr Brown's legacy could be the McDonald's diploma. If he doesn't rethink his education policy, it will be up to the Tories to bring the academic medals home for Britain.

Times Recommends

• Strip away the figleaf and reveal naysayers
• Dave’n’George: there may be trouble ahead
• I do not accept that £64,000 a year for politicians is peanuts