That’s the headline the party’s given to Nick Clegg’s speech this morning to the party’s one-day manifesto conference. You can read more, including a link to the full speech text, over on the party’s website.
Media coverage so far:
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
What’s going on with party strategy? (Caron Lindsay)
We do have a two-tier system (Neil Hickman)
Observations of an Expat: NATO Irony (Tom Arms)
What really happened? (Simon Banks)
Why community politics matters (Mark Corner)
Tom Arms Tom Arms 
Ruth Bright 
Tom Bailey 
Alex Macfie 
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
34 Comments
Right! Right! Right!
i like the idea of scrapping lower GCSE grades and allowing schools more freedom.
Hmmm…I like…could mean more schools like Summerhill without councils breathing down their necks?
Arty freedom schools?
Does this mean more religious schools?
I have to say that I was disappointed that Nick has left us once again looking like we favour Labour more strongly and absolutely reject the Tories.
By continuing the abandonment of equi-distance and suggestion of favouring Labour it doesn’t help us on the doorstep wher the Tories will just say a Liberal Democrat vote is a Labour vote.
Nick’s comments have just given more credibility to that.
By looking like we are just waiting to only support a minority Labour government and reject a minority one or even say we are aiming to be the largest party we only solidify this view and hand ammunition to the Tories.
We were almost eclipsed in the 20th century not because our vote went to the Labour vote vote in its entirety but because a substantial amount went to the Tories and we were even co-opted by them locally. Remember some Tory associations were actually Liberal Unionists or National Liberals.
There is a liberal-progressive tradition in the Tory party which became stronger with the emergence of Labour as a majority government in 1945 and then was only sidelined with the advent of Thatcherism.
We should not paint ourselves in to a box of being absolutely opposed to any coalition with the Tories – we don’t with Labour.
And with Labour so unpopular it will be electorally disasterous for us as it drives ‘change’ voters into the hands of the Tories. It also makes us look unreasonable.
You sound like Andy!
By trying to appeal to everyone we would end up appealing to no-one…
… or like a Tory sock puppet, what will all those comments saying “I’m a Lib Dem but I’m unhappy and going to moan on all the posts I can find”. Woof woof.
Good stuff, Nick. We needed to be much more radical in our education and health policies.
Well, the BBC headline is good but the detail leaves a lot to be desired. Councils haven’t “run” schools for donkey’s years – arguably central government has had more leverage over schools than local authorities for years. It’s government that sets the curriculum etc If parents choose to get involved they can run schools – they can certainly have a controlling block on the governing body. Parents groups are not rushing to set up new schools in our deprived, low achievement areas because they haven’t an earthly chance of raising the capital to do so, nor the expertise. Academies are ending up in the hands of a small number of national, business-backed organisations. No localisation here.
As for G-grade GCSEs, nobody’s taken them seriously for years. Nick’s been badly advised as the government has already just raised to bar to make the Five C-grade, inc Eng and Maths, the test of success. That causes all sorts of problems and has probably successfully destabilised the secondary education system to the extent that parents will desert dozens of schools that were actually making real progress.
That’s for starters. I expect I’ll have more to say in due course.
I don’t agree with Nick Clegg’s view (which has also been said by politicians and commentators from other political parties) that we need to give power back to the people. But that does not mean I support what the Labour government is doing – they are being criticised for being too centralist, but I think that centralism is what they are not doing enough of. They are not providing enough central support to guide schools and NHS Trusts in what is the best way to do things. There are targets that the schools and hospitals have to reach – and these work well – but the schools and hospitals have to work out themselves the best way to improve. The central government departments should be working out the best way to do things, and communicating this to the local service providers. If this were the case, there would be no excuse for things to go wrong locally. But to advocate more localism, when services are already failing in some parts of the country, without giving them guidance on how to best provide those services, seems to me to be the lazy approach that the Conservatives want and Labour are already doing.
What I find disturbing is that – apart from the attention-grabbing “free schools” proposal, which seems to be nothing more than a re-christening of existing Tory policy – Nick Clegg is advocating such an extreme laissez-faire approach to the public services.
His ideal, with respect to education, seems to be that government should do no more than (1) providing the finance and (2) overseeing the admissions process, with “minimum standards” being enforced by an unelected regulatory body (which will somehow be accountable to Parliament but independent of the Government).
Beyond that, schools are apparently to be left entirely to their own devices, and we are to trust to the “genius of grassroots innovation, diversity and experimentation” to make everything all right with the education system. And the same with the health service too, if I understand correctly.
Is this really what is now considered to be “Liberalism”? It certainly feels very different from the approach of the party during the last two decades for which I’ve been a member – which emphasised making active efforts to support and improve the public services, not trusting to pseudo-market, laissez-faire solutions.
Chris Phillips
Good to hear the Lib Dem leader sharing Conservative values and policies.
Together we can shrink the size of the state and help people more effectively.
11 – you can read more about a successful ‘free school’ by clicking on my site – just click on my name…
Jo Anglezarke
As I tried to make clear, I wasn’t commenting on the “free schools” proposal specifically, but on Nick Clegg’s extremely laissez-faire approach to the education and health services in general.
In your blog, you say:
“In my ideal world everyone would be free to set up their own school. It worked in the past, before the creation of considerable state intervention in education and I believe it will work once more.”
If you mean that everyone should have the right to set up a state-funded school and run it with minimal intervention from the democratically elected authorities who are providing the funding, then I’m sorry, but I find that a bizarre and dangerous notion.
Are you really saying that you’d like to turn the clock back to the early Victorian period, before state intervention in education?
Chris Phillips
Chris, it seems to work quite well in the Netherlands?
And Andrew, you win big points with the line “I don’t agree with Nick Clegg’s view (which has also been said by politicians and commentators from other political parties) that we need to give power back to the people” – don’t you think the above is an important thing to believe when you’re a member of a liberal party?
But, Chris, why are you finding yourself defending a system that has been proven not to work (the system here in the UK) whilst you are against a system that has been proven to work in the Netherlands?
I’m sorry, but a system that produces so many kids who cannot read and write needs a complete re-think.
Reading more about education recently after a break of about 5 or 6 years since A Levels has made me even angrier than it did orginally!
If I wanted to set up a school and employ teachers I should be able to…if it doesn’t work then I’m sure parents would vote with their feet and I would lose all my business and have to shut…
Peter Bancroft wrote:
“Chris, it seems to work quite well in the Netherlands?”
I’m not any kind of expert on education, but as far as I can see from a quick Google search, Dutch secondary education is selective and most children there attend private schools.
Maybe you could explain what “it” in the Dutch system you’re referring to?
Chris Phillips
Nick said in his campaign that as leader he would want to take the LibDems out of their ‘comfort zone’. I am a bit disappointed that there has not been more response here to these proposals. One of the main problems with the party for the last twenty years is that there has been too little radical thinking going on: radical means going back to the roots and re-examining our beliefs in the context of today’s society. Liberalism is not policy-static, we have to continually examine our solutions to problems to see whether they are still relevant to current needs. Asking whether the educational needs of the country are best served by central government control of the educational system seems to me to be a good radical question.
Jo Anglezarke wrote:
“But, Chris, why are you finding yourself defending a system that has been proven not to work (the system here in the UK) whilst you are against a system that has been proven to work in the Netherlands?”
No, I am not “defending” anything. I am criticising the extreme laissez-faire approach advocated in Nick Clegg’s speech.
And, as far as I can see, his proposals bear very little resemblance to what happens in the Netherlands. The logic of your position seems to be that we should switch to a selective system in which most children are educated privately. Is that really what you’re arguing?
Chris Phillips
Chris, I think your answers illustrate your perspective perfectly clearly. By “it” seeming to work I’m talking about social mobility, something I happen to be very passionate about.
Yes, 50% of children in the Netherlands go to schools run by private NGOs, but so what? “It” works. If you really want poor social mobility but insist on having all schools state run then you’re not going to like Nick’s proposals, but dare I say it that would be a stupid perspective to take.
Dutch schools are selective because children are assigned to different levels of curriculum based on their academic ability (school to prepare for University, school to prepare for management or apprenticeships, etc) – it seems to work in the Netherlands.. Maybe it wouldn’t in the UK (I can’t make up my mind), but that’s not what’s being proposed here.
Jo “If I wanted to set up a school and employ teachers I should be able to…”
You can – it is called private education.
But we are mainly talking about the spending of public money. And the bottom line here is: who are the best people to decide how to spend it? Are they the same people who can best judge what makes a good school? (As we know, a good school is not necessarily the one that always gets the top grades.)
Who should be leading a drive to improve standards?
Parents? But that means they have to actively engage with the system more, and many (most?) don’t – because they lack time and/or confidence (skills?) to do so.
Governors? Often also lacking the time and/or confidence.
Or politicians? (national or local?)
Those who say “give parents a choice of schools” MUST also provide spare capacity in the system to make it real. But Governments are constantly reviewing school provision to take OUT spare capacity because it is expensive.
PERHAPS we can arrive at an objective measure of what makes a good school and what bad (it probably does not just mean how many Grade As their students achieve). It will almost certainly involve making a judgment about the skills of the teachers. Does that mean compulsory retraining (or even redundancy) for “bad” teachers? That will also cost more money.
As a former county councillor (i.e. LEA) and now the parent of a young child, I have wrestled with these dilemmas for some years without coming up with good answers. Must try harder – as the report might say!
Peter Bancroft
But why did you say “it seems to work quite well in the Netherlands” above? Presumably there was some connection with Nick Clegg’s speech, or why say it?
And as for my “perspective”, let me have one more try at making it clear.
What I am saying is that I _don’t_ believe the answer to the problems with the education system (or the health service) is for the state to adopt a laissez-faire position, to cut its involvement to the bare minimum, and to hope that everything will sort itself out.
Why should anyone expect poor schools miraculously to become good schools, simply because they are left to their own devices?
Chris Phillips
Well,
Firstly nobody is suggesting that there’s going to be some “miraculous” change in poor schools.
I guess you have to believe the following:
– That human initiative is valuable
– That centralised planning does not always deliver the best outcomes
– That looking at the evidence from other countries is a valuable part of policy formation
The reason why the Dutch system is relevant is because the Dutch have a system of “free schools” – about 1/2 of Dutch pupils go to one, as you’ve pointed out. The Dutch system is also different in many ways – they have a form of selection for example, and schools are in Dutch, for another example. I probably wouldn’t want either of the above, but the way that interests outside of the state school provision have come in and greatly improved the overall standard of schooling is an outcome that I’m interested in.
Stephen Robinson’s point about capacity is important. Local authorities are under massive pressure from central government to take out capacity and predict pupil numbers to the nth degree. Under Building Schools for the Future this may even mean that a popular suburban school may contract – because its local population is contracting – even though it could easily fill its rolls.
People also seem to forget how diverse the state-funded sector already is. You could create a great deal of flexibility at the margins by looking at the criteria for being a voluntary-aided school, which currently only applies to religious foundations. But this would be marginal change, which might have a long-term impact but would not revolutionise standards.
I think policy-makers need to understand our own system a little better if they wish to make comparisons with one small European country.
Peter Bancroft wrote:
“The reason why the Dutch system is relevant is because the Dutch have a system of “free schools” – about 1/2 of Dutch pupils go to one, as you’ve pointed out.”
Actually, what I read was that about two thirds of Dutch children attend _private_ schools, which select on academic ability and receive no state funding. By all means correct me if that’s not true.
As far as I can see, Nick Clegg is proposing that his “free schools” will be state funded and will have a non-selective admissions policy overseen by local authorities.
Surely that’s completely different?
Chris Phillips
We need to be finding ways of making education relevant to the children who spend 11 years of their lives in the system and come out of it with nothing to show for their time. The current system simply is not doing that in too many cases, and raising the age of compulsory education is just going to make matters much worse unless their is a radical re-think about the sort of education that is on offer to pupils in this country. The Tomlinson proposals, which our party supported, were a sensible and necessary move in the right direction, and were promptly disowned by the government.
I have experience in the home education area, something that I know can only be marginal, but that does not make it unimportant because the success of many home educators shows that it is not necessary to have a rigid imposition of government standards to achieve results which allow children to go on to have successful and happy lives.
I see some of the anti-liberals are out defending state power…
The debate should not be about state good/private bad (or vice versa) it should be about how we can get the best education for children. For many children that may be in a private school, who cares?
The problem at the moment is private education is exclusive, despite wanting to private schools cannot offer places to all those they’d like to, they have to ration on price and for a few very talented individuals on ability.
Liberals believe in competition and markets, not in state control. That is what Nick Clegg is suggesting. The devil is in the detail, but the broad thrust is a welcome move towards liberal ideas.
As for ‘extreme laissez-faire’. I see none of that. Extreme laissez-faire would involve abandoning all schools, removing any requirement for education, removing all state funding from schools. I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that in the short term.
cgb:
Private does not mean there’s no state funding, just as state funding does not have to entail state control.
We used to fund private schools, until 1997 there was the assisted place scheme which helped poor pupils attend private schools. Before that local education boards used to pay for children to go to private schools.
Anyway, what’s wrong if a majority can afford private education – surely that’s a good thing since it gives them more freedom. The challenge is to extend that freedom to all people, not to curtail freedom for those who have it.
Chris, I think I see part of the confusion.
No, I actually don’t know of any fee-paying Dutch schools (though I’m sure they do exist). Whilst most children go to “private” schools, they are privately run and publicly financed, just like Nick’s “free schools”.
I’ve already explained Dutch selection – It’s necessary in the Netherlands as people choose schools based on the curriculum they offer and people choose a curriculum (nearest equivalent here is A levels v GNQVs) based on their abilities. I’m personally a fan of a Dutch/German personalised curriculum structure as a different issue, but there’s no need for selection if we don’t go down that route.
Whilst I try to make my language less confrontational than Tristan, I think he’s basically right. What’s being proposed here is that people are being empowered as individuals and communities to take control of their education and to improve everyone else’s education in doing so. I see that as a Very Good Thing. People who fret about people making their own choices and not having local councillors do it for them are obviously aiming at a very different outcome.
Tristan Mills wrote:
“I see some of the anti-liberals are out defending state power…
The debate should not be about state good/private bad (or vice versa) it should be about how we can get the best education for children. For many children that may be in a private school, who cares?”
I think it would help if you read what people are actually saying.
As far as I can see, neither Nick Clegg nor anyone here has advocated an extension of private education. (Maybe that’s what those people want who keep mentioning the Netherlands as a model, but if so they haven’t said so explicitly.)
The discussion has been about state-funded schools (including these proposed “free schools”, which would be set up by other organisations).
My concern is that Nick Clegg is proposing to minimize the involvement of government – either national or local – in state-funded schools.
I do not understand why people think leaving bad schools to their own devices is likely to result in an improvement. Nor do I understand how reducing the involvement of local authorities will fulfil Nick Clegg’s slogan of “putting parents in charge of schools”.
If anyone can explain either of these points to me, I shall be all ears.
As I mentioned, I have been a member of this party for 20 years, and I don’t appreciate being abused as an “anti-liberal” (or of “wanting poor social mobility”, or of having a “stupid perspective”) by people who won’t even take the trouble to read properly what I am saying.
Chris Phillips
Peter Bancroft
Thank you for clarifying the point about the Netherlands. As I said, I make no claim to be an expert on education, but having seen the following on Wikipedia –
“There are public, special (religious), and private schools. The first two are government-financed and officially free of charge, though schools may ask for a parental contribution (ouderbijdrage).”
– I understood that “private” in relation to the Netherlands meant the same as it does here. Apparently what Wikipedia calls “special (religious)” schools is what you are referring to.
I still think selection makes a huge difference, and makes that system very different from what Nick Clegg is proposing.
But above all, I wish you would explain _why_ you think minimising the involvement of local authorities in state-funding schools “empowers” people “to take control of their education”. How does reducing the influence of elected local authorities result in people having more control over schools?
Chris Phillips
Chris,
I can see the confusion – Wikipedia appears to have got it rather wrong. Unfortunate, but not unheard of.
“Special schools” is indeed the term for the Dutch “free schools” and many are religious, but many are not. At a high level you can takeaway that most Dutch children go to a school not run by the state, but paid for by the taxpayer, if that makes sense.
Why do I think it’s a good thing? Well, a major part is outcomes, but there’s also the theory, as you’ve pointed out.
“The man from the townhall” will still be running the state schools, but other organisations will have the chance to compete with them for pupils on an equal footing. Where “power” is leaving the LEA it’s going straight into the hands of the individual parents.
I’m a federalist and a liberal, so wherever the individual can have more choice *and* have better outcomes, then I can’t see the justification for “centralising” at the town hall level.
The accountability in an open market is that schools are accountable to those who use them. If they don’t approve, they can go somewhere else. This tends to drive up standards and something like a pupil premium encourages an especially focused competition for pupils who today have the worst choices and indeed the worst chances.
Peter Bancroft
I think if you read what the speech actually says, you’ll see that Nick Clegg spends most of his time talking about reducing government involvement in the public services in general, and in the education system in general. The “free schools” idea is only two paragraphs towards the end of quite a long speech.
So my question is two-fold:
(1) How will this approach put parents “in charge” of existing state schools?
(2) In what sense will parents be “in charge” of a “free school” set up by an educational charity or by a voluntary organisation? (And as for parents clubbing together to start schools, I really don’t see how that will work – if the schools are going to be strictly non-selective, that is.)
At the moment, it looks to me as though parents are going to be “in charge” of their local schools in much the same way as they are “in charge” of their local supermarkets, or their local banks.
Chris Phillips
Oh, and just to clarify, I don’t think Wikipedia has it wrong about Dutch education at all. The confusion arose from others referring to the “special schools” as “private schools”, whereas in fact they are state-funded.
Chris Phillips