In Full: Nick Clegg’s speech on education – enabling every child to achieve a happy and fulfilling life

Nick Clegg finally gave his much trailed speech on education today. The full version is below. Stephen Tall will give some more detailed commentary later, but for now, here’s a quick summary. There were six main themes

  • Schools should be free from too much Whitehall micromanagement but must meet core standards
  • Positioning Liberal Democrats in centre between Labour who want to interfere in everything and Tories who would be quite happy to have no core standards at all.
  • Parents need reassurance about quality of curriculum, that teachers are qualified and that healthy food is provided whatever type of state funded school their kids attend.
  • Teachers should be at least working towards a qualification.
  • Where schools are failing they need specialist help
  • There will be a new “champions’ league” team of heads who will move round schools who need them

Nick also referred to the “coalition split” stuff that’s been going around the past few days and was unapologetic.

On this and other aspects of education policy the Liberal Democrats will carry on setting out our stall: for example, last month I made it clear that I will want to see schools funding protected in the next Parliament – that’s a Liberal Democrat priority for our next manifesto.

People have a right to know what our vision for the future is. And explaining that vision is perfectly consistent with the Liberal Democrats being proud of what we have done in this coalition, and continuing to work with our coalition partners to deliver radical reform and the strong government the country needs. Being in Coalition today doesn’t prevent either of the Coalition parties setting out how we may differ in the future. That’s how Coalition works.

We at the Voice are looking forward to seeing Tim Farron and Tory minister Liz Truss, who has been less than impressed with Nick’s coments, have this out on Question Time tonight.

Anyway, as promised, here is the speech in full.

The fundamental reason why, I believe, education matters so much is to ensure every child has a fair chance of a successful life. That’s also why, I expect, many of you got into this profession in the first place.

Yet despite the efforts of successive Governments and the progress made to raise education standards in this country, on average, children from poorer families still do worse than their better off peers.

As last week’s report from the independent Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission shows, here in Britain, your parents’ income still remains the biggest indicator of what you’ll go on to achieve. More than your talent and potential. And more than in most other countries in Europe.

Some claim this is just a fact a life. They argue that any chance for social mobility in this country ended when the final bell rang for grammar schools, and disparage any efforts to break the link between disadvantage and achievement as social engineering at its worst.

I cannot accept this view. In politics, and in this Coalition, what motivates me and my party – more than any other issue – is increasing social mobility: building a fairer society, where everyone can succeed, irrespective of the circumstances of their birth.

So, when we came into government, in education, we prioritised three things:

First, ending Labour’s micromanagement of our schools. For thirteen years, Labour responded to every problem in our education system with a new target from the central government – frustrating our teachers and stifling the creativity needed to drive excellence across the board.

Second, we wanted to use the muscle of the state to level the playing field so that all children can flourish – not just the well-off. That’s what our £2.5 billion pupil premium is for – additional money to help close the gap, which we are beginning to see having an effect.

And, third, we wanted to make sure that the state is intervening where it can make the biggest difference – when children are young. Access to high-quality early years education helps give children the best possible start in life. That’s why I have made the early years a personal priority: we have increased the hours available for three and four year olds and extended it to two year olds in families which are most feeling the squeeze. Last month I announced free school meals for all children in infant school; and, one of the first things David Laws did when he became Schools Minister was insist that we rebalanced the pupil premium so that more of the money goes to children when they are in primary school, to help them catch up before they fall too far behind.

Freedom for schools; a level playing field for all children: and more support for children in their earliest years.

It’s an approach that seeks to drive diversity and autonomy within the schools system, but with the guarantee of opportunities for all.

So freedom, yes, but with fairness too. For liberals, it is essential we provide both.

 Freedom with fairness

I’m proud of our work over the last three years to increase school autonomy, which, in Government with the Conservatives, has been through the academies programme. It is Liberal Democrat policy to give all schools, whether they are academies or not, those same freedoms to attract and reward excellent teaching, set their own term dates and vary their school day.
We believe greater autonomy enables school leaders to take responsibility in those areas where they know what’s best for their pupils, whilst also giving them the freedom to innovate.

But it shouldn’t surprise you if I say that, although we work well with the Conservatives, our two parties still have differences of opinion – some strongly held. And looking to the future, there are aspects of schools policy currently affected by the priorities of the Conservative Party which I would not want to see continue.

For example, whilst I want to give schools the space to innovate, I also believe every parent needs to know that the school their child attends, whatever its title or structure, meets certain core standards of teaching and care. A parental guarantee – if you like.

Parents don’t want ideology to get in the way of their children’s education. They don’t care about the latest political label attached to their child’s school. What they want, and expect, is that their children are taught by good teachers, get taught a core body of knowledge, and get a healthy meal every day.

What is the point of having a slimmed-down national curriculum if only a few schools have to teach it? Let’s teach it in all our schools.

And what is the point of having brilliant new food standards if only a few schools have to stick to the rules? Let’s have quality food in all our schools.

That’s my philosophy. Diversity amongst schools, yes. But good universal standards all parents can rely on too.  And, frankly, it makes no sense to me to have qualified teacher status if only a few schools have to employ qualified teachers.

Over the last ten years, there’s been a revolution in the way in which we’ve recruited and trained our teachers. Whether it’s through the on-the-job learning offered through schemes like Teach First and School Direct or the continued contribution of our universities to educating generations of Britain’s teachers.

Together, these diverse routes into the classroom have raised the public profile and status of our teachers and enabled more graduates, more teaching assistants and more people from a range of backgrounds to join this profession. What all of these routes have in common is that at the end of them you are recognised as a Qualified Teacher. And I want every parent to know that their child will benefit from this kind of high quality teaching.

That’s why I believe we should have qualified teachers in all our schools.

That means free schools and academies too.

This view has sparked quite a bit of excitement this week – and some criticism: the idea that, if you seek to give parents reassurances on basic standards, you are somehow turning your back on school autonomy. And, equally, that having open differences of this kind is bad for Coalition government.

Let me say something on both points.

In my first ever speech as Lib Dem leader, back in 2008, I called for a new generation of schools which could be set up by different providers, like educational charities, parents and voluntary organisations, providing they had the right credentials. My party supports school freedom. At our conference in the spring of this year, the Liberal Democrats passed a motion celebrating the unprecedented freedom granted to head teachers and teachers by the Coalition Government. The party wants to see all schools have more freedoms like academies.

But I am totally unapologetic for believing that, as we continue to build a new type of state funded school system – in which parents are presented with a dizzying range of independent, autonomous schools, each with its own different specialism, ethos or mission – parents can make their choice safe in the knowledge that there are certain safeguards. A safety net, if you like, to prevent their children from falling through the cracks.

So, yes, I support free schools and academies, but not with exemptions from minimum standards. That’s the bit I want to see change. And that will be clearly set out in our next General Election manifesto.

There is nothing – absolutely nothing – inconsistent in believing that greater school autonomy can be married to certain core standards for all.

And I am totally unapologetic that the Liberal Democrats have our own ideas about how we do that.

Ultimately, the Labour Party is hostile to school autonomy – their instincts always take them back to Whitehall’s heavy hand.

Meanwhile, many on the Right are hostile to setting minimum educational standards. At least they are in academies and free schools. In maintained schools, however, the Conservatives seem to believe it is alright to micromanage things down to which ancient British kings are taught in history class. All that I ask is that we seek to deliver the same balance of freedoms and core standards across all schools.

And, in the liberal centre, the Liberal Democrats – and, I believe, most parents – know that there is a balance to be struck:

So in the future, the Liberal Democrats will seek to build on everything we have achieved in this Coalition – driving greater diversity and freedom in all our schools.

But, as we do, we will also strive to make sure that every parent can send their children off in the morning, knowing that, whatever kind of school they go to – academy, free school, maintained school, whichever – their sons and daughters will be taught core subjects, by qualified teachers and they’ll get healthy meal.

On this and other aspects of education policy the Liberal Democrats will carry on setting out our stall: for example, last month I made it clear that I will want to see schools funding protected in the next Parliament – that’s a Liberal Democrat priority for our next manifesto.

People have a right to know what our vision for the future is. And explaining that vision is perfectly consistent with the Liberal Democrats being proud of what we have done in this coalition, and continuing to work with our coalition partners to deliver radical reform and the strong government the country needs. Being in Coalition today doesn’t prevent either of the Coalition parties setting out how we may differ in the future. That’s how Coalition works.

Teachers

And I can tell you today that one area where we have agreed further reform is on better support for our teachers and school leaders – the people who are too often missing from the debate on structures and standards.

It’s a cliché to say it, but no less true that what you never forget about your school days are those teachers who changed your life.

A good teacher knows how to inspire and enthral a class of children to learn – whatever the subject.

He or she recognises each child for the individual they are, and does whatever they can to help that child build on their talents for a happy, successful life.

As a father of three school-age children, I also speak from experience when I say these are the teachers that your children never stop talking about when they get home from school.

That special connection – with someone who makes you as enthusiastic about learning, as they are about teaching – is what defines, for many of us, the very best in education.

It’s what we want for our children. It’s what we expect from our local schools. And critically, it’s what the brightest and best teachers in Britain strive to achieve every single day.

As Jemima Reilly, the head of this school, told us, “We are proud to attract and maintain good quality teachers…we give our teachers the space to grow and in turn their students grow and flourish alongside them.”

And as Ofsted has pointed out, if you’re a poor child going to school in some parts of Britain, you’re less likely to do well than poor children here in Tower Hamlets.

This isn’t just Britain’s inner cities that we’re talking about here. In some cases, these are relatively prosperous regions like West Berkshire and Shropshire and our seaside towns like Blackpool or Hastings.

The issue isn’t that there aren’t brilliant schools or teachers in these areas. There are.

But there are also weak schools and schools which have simply stalled.

These schools are failing many children – including from disadvantage backgrounds – who with the right support and attention could thrive.

The good teachers in these schools want to learn from their better performing neighbours. But they don’t have a clear idea about how to start that conversation.

They want to improve. Do more for local children and parents from all backgrounds. But they don’t have the right leadership and skills on site to boost their performance.

They want to share their own knowledge of what works beyond their own classroom with their colleagues. But don’t know how to make that happen.

They can’t progress. Their schools are stalled and could do much better. And, worse of all, the children they teach are heading for a life defined by their background not their talents.

We already know that some good Local Authorities are meeting that challenge by helping schools in their area find good leaders. And our ‘Similar Schools’ data is designed to help schools – without that kind of support – to link up and learn from outstanding schools tackling the same issues as them. So, as we improve the information available online, I’d encourage more schools to use it.

But we need to do more if we’re to tackle this issue nationally and ensure that more schools can benefit from the expertise of our best head teachers.

Champions’ League – head teachers

That’s why I’m pleased to announce today that the Government will be setting up a programme to get outstanding leaders into the schools that need them the most.

The Department for Education will be setting out further details in due course. But what I can say is that there will be a pool of top talent within the profession, a Champions League of Head Teachers, made up of Heads and Deputy Heads, who will stand ready to move to schools in challenging circumstances that need outstanding leaders.

So if you’re a school facing tough challenges and finding it hard to recruit an exceptional leader, you’ll be able to call on this team and request someone with a proven leadership track record.

We’re looking for experienced Head Teachers ready for a new challenge, or bright Deputy Heads looking to take the next step and lead a school.

If you are selected, we’d need you to make a real commitment to the school, its staff and its children.

You’ll receive help to relocate to the areas where you’re needed and the necessary professional support to turn around your school. And we will work to help you in your new role taking on this challenging school.

This is entirely voluntary. No one will be forced to accept one of these positions or move.

We want the first of these leaders to be in place from September 2014.

Initially the scheme will start small, but our ambition is for this team to become as important to our education system as Teach First.

CONCLUSION

So in conclusion, if we’re to build a stronger economy and fairer society in Britain then we need every child in every region of our country to be succeeding.

That’s the vision I have for education in this country. A system built on greater choice, innovation, accountability and excellence: designed to benefit everyone.

Where every school has the freedom, autonomy and resources to thrive.

Where every teacher is empowered to be the best, progressing and improving throughout their career.

Where every parent has a guarantee that their child will receive the best standard of education available.

And where every child gets the attention, support and excellent teaching they need to achieve the happy and fulfilling life they want.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

12 Comments

  • Eddie Sammon 24th Oct '13 - 4:57pm

    I would support the speech if it wasn’t for his newfound obsession with school meals. If we are going to micromanage on school meals then we may as well just micromanage the whole lot like Labour. Also, how can we criticise the tories for universal benefits whilst we think ensuring that rich kids get healthy free school meals is more important spending priority than kids having food bank suppers.

  • Matthew Huntbach 24th Oct '13 - 5:01pm

    The wording of this speech gives the impression of complete hostility to Labour and continuing friendship with the Conservatives. It suggests we find everything about Labour wrong, but that our differences with the Conservatives are minor, that n the whole we agree with the Conservative way of doing things and oppose Labour.

    If this is the case, I would not want to have anything to do with the Liberal Democrats.

    I accept that for pragmatic reasons we are in coalition with the Conservatives, but I do NOT accept that they are any better than Labour. In fact, to me, one of the main reasons things went wrong with the Labour government of 1997-2010, why they got this country into such a mess was BECAUSE they adopted so much of the policy and ways of thinking and doing things of the Conservative governments of 1979-1997. To write this off as if it was all the faults of Labour and not to acknowledge how much Labour continued with the false measures of the previous governments, measures which just made things look good while selling out us and our country to the super-rich and hiding long term social and economic decline, is to me a betrayal of all that drew me to joining and continuing with the Liberal Democrats.

  • Matthew Huntbach 24th Oct '13 - 5:12pm

    Nick Clegg

    And as Ofsted has pointed out, if you’re a poor child going to school in some parts of Britain, you’re less likely to do well than poor children here in Tower Hamlets.

    This isn’t just Britain’s inner cities that we’re talking about here. In some cases, these are relatively prosperous regions like West Berkshire and Shropshire and our seaside towns like Blackpool or Hastings.

    Er yes, but there’s an awkward issue here, isn’t there?

    Those other parts of Britain are largely white. Tower Hamlets is largely brown.

    To suggest that it’s just about the schools, and not to acknowledge there’s also cultural issues here is ridiculous.

    Children in Tower Hamlets come, largely, from a background which involves strong and rigid family and religious culture. This sort of thing has mostly broken down amongst white people. The Bangladeshis in Tower Hamlets originally had big difficulties due to language problems and poverty, but their family and religious culture is pushing them forward – I know that through having worked in education in Tower Hamlets for 24 years. However, that strong family and religious background is not very liberal.

  • Helen Dudden 24th Oct '13 - 5:23pm

    Rickets, is back, children are showing signs of vitamin D. Well Nick, well done, I tried to talk with Don Foster MP today, on the subject, Don is busy with tourism.

    Should children be given vitamin D tablets? Good question. The highest rise has now been reported on the subject. This was a Victorian issue.

    By the way, mental health in children is also a problem.

    I support the Labour Party on the cuts to Children’s Services in Bath. I also support, the improvement on child abduction and retention under the Hague Convention. Not one of your MP’s in the All Party, since Mike Hancock MP .

  • @ Matthew Huntbach “The wording of this speech gives the impression of complete hostility to Labour and continuing friendship with the Conservatives. It suggests we find everything about Labour wrong, but that our differences with the Conservatives are minor, that n the whole we agree with the Conservative way of doing things and oppose Labour.”

    That’s not my reading at all. Nick was I think equally scathing of both. I’d be interested to know how you think we as a party should deal with Labour – should we barely criticise them at all? If so, I’d imagine people will see us as Labour-lite and if you’d like Labour lite I think you’re more likely to go for Labour than Lib Dems. Or alternatively we could present the Lib Dems as more Labour than Labour. Or perhaps present the Lib Dems as more Labour than Labour. Aside from personally I’d hate that I just don’t see that being credible with voters.

  • Robert Wootton 26th Oct '13 - 12:13am

    Good things the Labour party has done in government. The Open University, NHS Direct, SureStart, the NHS.
    Good things the Conservative party has done. Repelled the occupation of the Falkland Islands by Argentina. I digress. Education, there should be rules that schools need to follow that will enable the teachers in the Education System to produce excellence in teaching and excellence in educational attainment by all pupils. What those rules need to be is something for professionals in Operational Research and Organisational Systems Designers to discover and test.

    Ofsted and the related bureaucracy could then be abolished because excellence in education would be the output of the system.

  • Andy Boddington 26th Oct '13 - 10:22am

    Spot on @Helen Tadcastle. I live in Ludlow. Its town centre is in the top 10% of wealthy areas in England. Less than a mile away, the area colloquially known as Sandpits is in the bottom 10%. Nick should talk to our Lib Dem councillors. No point in talking to the Tories who run the county as they are blind to almost anything other than how much things cost.

  • Ben Jephcott 26th Oct '13 - 1:08pm

    Very concerning that such a radical failure to grasp economic reality in Shropshire has appeared in Nick’s speech. Unemployment and car ownership stats mask the reality: Shropshire has the second lowest wage levels in England (after Cornwall ) and as it has only rudimentary public transport outside Telford and Shrewsbury and a uniquely dispersed rural settlement pattern in hamlets and micro-villages, car ownership is very high relative to any other index of wealth, because they are essential tools for existence, not an optional extra. With house prices above average but wages so far below, unmet housing need is also pretty massive, despite the work of Heather Kidd developing the South Shropshire model of affordable housing delivery now an LGA benchmark. Many of these deprived areas elect Liberal Democrat councillors.
    As Andy says, there is a peculiar segmenting in Shropshire of areas of prosperity with extensive real deprivation not far away, especially in the west. The Barnett formula is almost uniquely unkind to Shropshire, and it is a shame the coalition has not tackled it, but perhaps understandable, but bracketing this county with Berkshire is woefully wide of the mark.

  • Andy Boddington 26th Oct '13 - 1:59pm

    @Ben

    Without any stats on hand, my gut reaction is that Berkshire is just like Shropshire. Well rich and dirt poor cheek by jowl.

    The biggest issue is that politicians have a very black and white view of the world. Urban is struggling, rural is idyllic. Our socio-economic geography is so much more complex than that.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User Avatartheakes 15th Nov - 12:33pm
    Great result in Tunbridge Wells, but the swing is misleading, we won the ward in May with over 30%, think the alleged increase of 39%...
  • User AvatarDennis Wake 15th Nov - 11:57am
    Interesting that in actual elections the Liberal Democrats are doing well and Labour are doing badly, sometimes disastrously. They want us to stand down in...
  • User Avatartheakes 15th Nov - 11:46am
    Great result in Tunbridge Wells, but the swing is misleading, we won the ward in May with over 30%, think the alleged increase of 39%...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 15th Nov - 11:41am
    I suppose it's a bit of an advance for Jane Dodds (and I give her credit) for admitting that the Welfare Reform Act of 2012...
  • User AvatarRichard Underhill. 15th Nov - 10:12am
    The Tunbridge Wells Alliance is a local party http://twalliance.com/who-we-are/
  • User AvatarJohn B 15th Nov - 8:11am
    Thanks for your comment, Jonathan. You may have been tongue in cheek, but many on LDV seem to have a naïve view about working with...