“We are and always will be the party of education and I’ll be saying more about that in the near future,” promised Nick Clegg in his Bloomburg speech on Monday. Today we saw the start, with the Lib Dem leader setting out the party’s Parental Guarantee that “every parent can be confident that their child will be taught a core curriculum by a properly qualified teacher”.
This isn’t actually a new policy. The ‘parental guarantee’ was first announced last October. And the policy it’s based on was passed at the Lib Dems’ spring 2013 conference: ‘Every Child Taught by an Excellent Teacher’ (F5). Still, there’s no harm in re-announcing these things, especially if you’re part of a Coalition Government which isn’t pursuing the policy. That’s what the party has done today:
Our policy, first passed by our federal conference in March 2013, would change legislation so that, by September 2016, all schools will have the same requirement to employ qualified teachers. We have also planned for every state school to deliver a minimum curriculum entitlement, setting out the basic skills and knowledge that every child needs.
These plans have been strongly supported by both the National Association for Head Teachers (NAHT) and the Association for School and College Leaders (ASCL) – who between them represent the overwhelming majority of head teachers in this country.
In 2012, Michael Gove announced he would remove the requirement for academies to employ qualified teachers. As well as this, academies and free schools are exempt from teaching the National Curriculum. This has meant that some schools have abused their freedom over the curriculum, excluding vital subjects.
The Liberal Democrats want to provide greater clarity to all schools on what should be taught. We believe that our children should have the chance to study content that is as engaging and stretching as in the best performing countries.
Here’s what the NAHT’s Russell Hobby said about it: “Teaching is a profession. It has an academic and theoretical foundation as well as the skills and craft gained through experience. Parents should expect teachers to be qualified, as an assurance of their ability. Heads also value qualifications when recruiting. We welcome this acknowledgement from Nick Clegg.”
In some ways, this issue is an artificial divide. As FactCheck noted a few months ago, the number of unqualified teachers in publicly funded schools actually fell between 2010 and 2012 – down from 17,800 in 2010 to 14,800 in 2012. True, these numbers apply mostly to the time before the Coalition loosened the requirement, but as most school leaders believe qualified teaching status (QTS) is an essential requirement when hiring staff it’s unlikely there’s been an explosion in the numbers of teachers who are unqualified (or who are not working towards a qualification) within the English school system.
Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable that a future Lib Dem government (Oi, stop sniggering at the back) should expect that those employed within schools have a professional qualification. It’s hard to think of a comparable profession which doesn’t have such entry requirements; and certainly not one of which we expect so much.
I don’t buy the idea this is the heavy-handed State trying to impose itself on schools which should have freedom to employ who they like. As I noted here on Wednesday, teaching quality is the single most important factor in children’s education – and it’s at least as good in the state sector (on average) as the private sector (on average). Of course there are brilliant teachers who don’t have formal teaching qualifications employed by private schools, but the challenges in the state sector tend to be tougher. It isn’t just subject knowledge that matters, but also pedagogy. I have no problems with the Lib Dems saying we should want the best-qualified teachers possible within our school system.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Thelma Davies
David Raw
Nigel Jones
Ruth Clark
29 Comments
The Sky news coverage of this used the strapline “Lib Dem school pledge”.
“Of course there are brilliant teachers who don’t have formal teaching qualifications employed by private schools, but the challenges in the state sector tend to be tougher. ”
Quite so. I went to the former and I’m sure some of the great teachers I had weren’t qualified, but would far rather there was certain training before someone steps into the classroom. If someone wants to be a teacher then asking them to show a certain level of skill isn’t that much to ask, surely?
” In 2012, Michael Gove announced he would remove the requirement for academies to employ qualified teachers. As well as this, academies and free schools are exempt from teaching the National Curriculum. ”
Aye, there’s the rub. Gove should have been stopped and if Clegg had listened to people who know something about education in the party, we wouldn’t have had to announce this today.
” This has meant that some schools have abused their freedom over the curriculum, excluding vital subjects.”
No Nick, it was inevitable that ‘vital subjects’ were going to be cut by some schools if you gave them the freedom to say concentrate on maths or Latin or what ever the governors decided. If you give them free rein, don’t be surprised they take a mile.
The subject of Religious Education has, in the light of recent events in Birmingham, been shown to be an absolutely essential subject in teaching young people not just about one religion but Christianity and other religions.
RE is a key way of promoting deeper understanding of others in a multi-faith society and of fostering a more cohesive society (no, it is not RI – that ship sailed twenty plus years ago).
A pity then that Nick signed off Gove’s EBacc, which was supposed to be a ‘core body of knowledge’ for pupils. RE was not included in the humanities section (too liberal for Gove because it’s multi-faith) and so many schools cut it altogether, so they could teach more Geography and Ancient History in the EBacc.
I hold Nick Clegg directly responsible for this failure of policy and lack of listening to party members on this. The chickens are now coming home to roost, hence the desperate scramble today.
Gove has been quite busy recently “closing a few stable doors after…” The total freedom granted to academies (like all totally unregulated ‘market-driven’ initiatives) (see the debate yesterday re Uber and taxis) was always going to result in a lottery. Some schools have flourished and taken achievement levels/pupil and parent satisfaction to levels which could hardly have been imagined under the dead hand of some councils’/LEAs’ control (especially where you have had one party entrenched in overall control for years/decades) but, in contrast, the dangers of Birmingham, misappropriation of funds and employing duff teachers among the excellent ones who undoubtedly are working out there with no formal teaching qualifications were also there right from the start. The idea of literally thousands of state schools being run from desks in a (massively slimmed down) DFE in London was/is just bonkers (as Gove’s Tory predecessors had recognised in the 1900s!) Compulsory teacher training for the state sector is also vital, not because it will make brilliant, inspirational teachers out of everyone who undergoes it (it won’t, but it is certainly more likely to for some than undergoing no training at all!) but mainly because it does set a bare minimum level of competence to practise (under state school conditions – vastly different in so many ways to the private sector due to available resources (class size, subject choice, extra-curricular activities, facilities for these etc). I am afraid I agree with Helen that this area (education) was one where the party should have added even more to the many achievements it does have to show (pupil premium, apprenticeships, free lunches) and we should really have stuck with absolute tenacity to the “party of education” label (which brings us to tuition fees…!)
Nick Clegg was directly responsible for the failure of the Education policy, and of the health policy. He did not listen to his members.
A personal guarantee from Nick Clegg. That is a laugh to most people after Tuition Fees etc.
As Andrew Neil asked on the daily politics why did all but 6 lib dem MPs vote for unqualified teachers back in 2011? – this a good u-turn but Clegg but too little, too late .
[email protected]
http://www.libdemfightback.yolasite.com
Sometimes I despair. Teaching RE is progressive? Teaching mythology and unproven beliefs in SCHOOLS? Well, let’s go for it. Harry Potter studies, Ancient Elvish… Why not? They are about as unbelievable as …..
Well, we’d better hope that Labour view us a potential partner, or there’ll be a lot of agressive scrutiny at the election about the fact that we are so-called doing a ‘U-turn’ on ‘our’ previous coalition policy. The Tories are trying this line already.
It’s a sensible policy in itself, as far as it goes, and it would have been reasonable to expect it as a Tory policy up until the rise of Gove.
Yes, RE can certainly be progressive. Pupils will grow to be adults who will need to interact appropriately with peoples of many faiths, and may already be in that situation. They need to know the main features of what people in this world believe.
I agree with Richard “They (children, young people – not to mention the rest of us) need to know the main features of what people in this world believe.”
As we live in a secular society, the essentially pro-religious faith ‘RE’ topic should be replaced by the study of the multitude of belief systems that we human beings subscribe to. In addition to theistic-based beliefs, multi and non-theist beliefs should be included. Perhaps ideas such as citizenship, democracy and tolerance might be included.
… and I agree with Stephen Hesketh. A focus on one particular religion has, in my view, no place in our schools. Churches or other places of worship may want to do that, schools should not.
RE could be fine if it was taught as a branch of anthropology or philosophy (but in which case why restrict it to religion only). On paper RE is basically meant to be taught as a branch of anthrolopology, but certainly when I was young the problem was that the teachers were ex-scripture teachers who were obviously not going to go into questions such as whether faith is a legitimate tool in searching for truth. I don’t know who it attracts these days.
@ Martin Land
A vain attempt to do Dawkins-style mockery won’t wash. In the real world, faith communities exist and so does religion. As it defines and affects so much history, culture, life and practice of billions of people, yes, unashamedly, I argue for high quality Religious Education in schools – it is a quintessential humanity.
@ Stephen Hesketh
You cannot pass GCSE Religious Studies without looking at/evaluating different perspectives. It’s an academic subject. The same with A Level. So it stands to reason that pupils have to be taught to explore and engage with the beliefs from early on in their school career. I know this because I am an RE specialist (secondary).
Yes the UK is secular but it is also as Rowan Williams says, saturated in Christianity with a vibrant multi-faith dimension – this is the paradox of the UK.
I wonder whether you base your assumptions, (as too many do on LDV), not on the reality of quality RE in schools now but on experience of school RI a generation or two earlier, when the teacher with a free period, or a teacher – who happened to be a Christian – had to teach RI/Scripture?
Sadly, thanks to our friend Mr Gove and Nick Clegg’s lack of listening, the situation regarding improving the quality of RE in schools, has been set back by years.
My boy did RE and ethics at A Level, along with history and English Literature. His RE course seemed to be as much about ancient and modern philosophy as the main world religions. He’s studying anthropology at Durham University now. He’s very cultured and well educated, but I hope he can get a job that pays enough to cover his student loans after he graduates.
@Helen Tedcastle, what you say is true, but in which case why does it make sense to teach Religion other than as part of the cultural context in which it is found – you only have half the picture then – so shouldn’t we have anthropology instead, with RE as an element within it? Viewed from outside, the Buddhism of a California hippy is somewhat difference to the Buddhism of a Thai special forces member.
Joe Bourke
Delighted to read that your son did Religious Studies A Level. It sounds as if he took a similar course to the one I used to teach. Philosophy and ethics are integral and constituent parts of Religious Studies when one goes deeper into it. This broadens and deepens still further at degree level.
Richard S: Anthropology is one approach to the study of religions as is philosophy (of religion) but it isn’t the only way. There are several methodological approaches.
Hi Helen
I’m in my mid-50’s so sincerely hope that ‘RE’ has improved since my time in school!
I personally find, in no particular order, different cultural, religious and political beliefs to be genuinely interesting and do believe we are all enriched by understanding the views and beliefs of others.
I know from your posts that you and I agree on most topics so I hesitate to be ‘controversial’ but my problem is I just don’t do organised religion. My personal view is that, all over the world, religions usually reflect and promote very patriarchal, male-dominated (and usually conservative) views of their society and tend to be used as powerful tools for social, gender and economic control and have been used, over the ages, right up to the present day, all manner of inhumanities against our fellow humans. No doubt I am conflagrating religious and social forces in holding some of these views!
@Helen, but ultimately isn’t religion a type of philosophy? So religion should be taught in philosophy not the other way round? Teaching RE as a separate subject seems to be saying we are going to teach philosophy, but only religious philosophy (or we are going to teach anthropology, but only in so far as it pertains to religion.) What are the arguments in favour of teaching a half subject like that?
Stephen Hesketh
Hi Stephen, thanks for your response. Yes I think we’re pretty much on the same page on most issues and I don’t actually disagree with your description of patriarchy and conservatism present in religious traditions – it would be churlish to gloss over that and anyway, as you might expect, I’m pretty critical of it myself. Fortunately, that is not the whole story and there are more liberal/progressive forces within religions, which many not hit the headlines that often but are alive and vibrant.
I think any kind of fundamentalism, political or religious is blinkered and narrow, and you are right it has embroiled itself in nasty sectarianism throughout history. This is one reason why I’m passionate about the type of RE which promotes critical thinking and inquiry and is found in so many high quality RE syllabuses in state schools. It equips young people to find out about religions but also helps develop them as independent thinkers. It is no accident that some of my best pupils were of no particular religious background themselves.
As far as someone who is a mainstream self-defining Christian or Muslim or Jewish person is concerned, I think faith can only be truly understood through seeking understanding, not through unthinking repetition of mantras.
@ Richard S
Let me re-frame the question and ask why is the study of religion so essential and in fact central to understanding in the humanities?
If you think about it, it is the religious impulse which has driven human behaviour and organisation, not the other way around. Religion, primitive and ancient or modern, has been the basic human practice which the anthropologists study and theorise about. In terms of philosophy, up until the early renaissance in Europe it could barely be separated from religion and theology – the great philosophers were all religious, whether from high medieval Catholicism or early Greek paganism. Even the Enlightenment is in fact a child of religion, borne of the discussions of faith and reason. So religion may appear marginal in terms of daily living in contemporary Britain but it has shaped thought and practices in the UK and continues to do so throughout the world (not always peacefully due to the heady cocktail of sectarianism and politics). I’m not sure how one understands the world without some knowledge of it.
In short, as a subject, religion is at the heart of the humanities and the other disciplines (philosophy, sociology etc…) are methodological or theoretical approaches towards its study. I hope this helps!
@ Stephen Hesketh
I might also add that I had some excellent, thoughtful students who were from faith backgrounds too – just in case any of them happen to look on these threads!!
At last the Leader is listening to his grass roots. More of the same please.
Oh dear, an aged aunt seeks, yet again, to give her penny’s worth.
I believe, wholeheartedly, in education, education, education; it is the only way forward. However, I am also able to recognise that many Science, Maths and Modern Language graduates, together with their counterparts in the technical field, are not drawn into teaching when they graduate. Such people may well go on to succeed in their chosen fields but might, eventually, wish to share their accumulated knowledge with others. Our “state-funded” schools need these people; our “state-funded” schools do not need “academies” and do not need “free schools”. Oh, our country, my country, needs comprehensive schools that cater for all children whatever their perceived abilities.
Yes, our “state-funded” schools, preferably state-funded comprehensive schools, need to attract those people who, in the past, sought to share their expertise with the off-spring of those who could afford the fees of the public, and private, schools. I do not disrespect those who went to public, or private, schools since any parent with anything about them does the best for its children whatever; my concern is for people who have no financial choice in the direction of the education of its children.
Nick Clegg, you were afforded the best, so why shouldn’t our children be afforded the best? Nick Clegg, David Cameron and the rest were, seemingly, educated by persons who excelled in their field. Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! I know a number of gifted people who, with degrees in much-needed subject areas , and with much life experience, would make brilliant teachers but who, with families to support, would not be able to commit themselves to a PGCE programme, only to be demoted, financially and literally, to student status. In the realms of financial sacrifice, I understand from reading LDV that a number of potential Lib Dem candidates, who have families to support, feel likewise.
Stephen, something went drastically wrong in North Devon when my postal vote in the European election was rejected. I was advised that my signature did not match the signature that the Council held, so my vote was rejected. I was distraught.
@ Shirley Campbell – I agree that academic, professional or technical qualifications, knowledge and experience would be a great thing. Why should such a person going into teaching not do a PGCE part-time in their first two years?
I did a Cert Ed (FE) in the late 90s when I took a lecturing post and it had just become a requirement to have a teaching qualification.
Shirley Campbell
“I know a number of gifted people who, with degrees in much-needed subject areas , and with much life experience, would make brilliant teachers but who… would not be able to commit themselves to a PGCE programme, only to be demoted, financially and literally, to student status”
Except that there have been various ways to enter teaching for ‘exceptional’ people, (aren’t those who choose to make teaching their vocation, pretty exceptional people? I think so), such as John Major’s ‘Licensed teacher’ programme in the 1990s and now Gove’s ‘Schools Direct’. This is a way of working towards QTS ‘on the job’.
It’s a tough route and yet it is available for the mature student.
In my experience of the ‘Licensed teacher,’ schools can pick up a few new teachers that way, though they had a strange way of leaving for the private sector or going abroad after a couple of years…
Surely, all school children need to be taught a core curriculum based upon British (ie non-Gove) values and faith that one day the Liberal Democrats will be allowed to return to theirs? 🙂
Clegg…Guarantee…..Sorry, sort of switched off after the first three words of the headline.
@Helen Tedcastle
Religion is related to those subjects but it is a small part of them. But we could also have Alan Partridge studies, dealing with anthropology, sociology and philosophy but only in terms of how they relate to people living in the M11 corridor. Why would that be different to studying anthropology, sociology and philosophy but only in terms of how they relate to religion? Why does it make sense to study those subjects through the prism of something else?