 |
| One of the headlines about the use of unqualified teachers. |
I have thought about this much in the past couple of days.
There have been a number of reports in the UK national press in recent weeks about various problems associated with one of the government’s flagship education policies – the encouragement and rapid growth of free schools and academies. These schools are largely funded by central government rather than local authority and given enormous powers and “freedoms” not available to "ordinary" state schools. Amongst their “freedoms” they are not subject to the same requirements for teaching the National Curriculum as other state schools, they can act very much more independently and can, if they wish, employ unqualified teachers. Indeed, a number of the recent high profile reports have hinged around this last “freedom” – in some cases free schools appointing “head teachers” who are themselves unqualified and may have little or even no experience of running a school. In one or two cases the school has got into serious difficulties. Despite the concerns of a huge swathe of the education world about the development of these schools it is part of the government’s educational ideology and dogma – in particular the brainchild of Michael Gove the Education Minister. The virtues or otherwise of these institutions, however, is not the subject of this blog – I will save that for another day!
 |
| Even the Conservative Daily Telegraph reported on the disquiet |
Two weeks ago I wrote to my local MP, Kenneth Clarke – a
respected MP, a government minister, and ex-Education Minister and Chancellor
of the Exchequer. Clarke lives locally and is rightly regarded a good constituency MP.
I have on occasions written to him and always received a polite if bland
answer to my concerns, a situation which I have always put down to the fact that he would
not betray his party to such as me. Maybe that is just a euphemism for not
telling me what he really thinks – instead he trots out the party line. Just maybe that in turn has implications for his personal integrity and sincerity but, that aside, I have respect for the man even though he is not of my political
persuasion.
I should be more precise, however – I had respect for him until a day or two ago when I received a reply to my letter asking him for his views on the use of unqualified teachers in free schools and academies. I copy my letter below:
I should be more precise, however – I had respect for him until a day or two ago when I received a reply to my letter asking him for his views on the use of unqualified teachers in free schools and academies. I copy my letter below:
Dear Mr Clarke,
As you are my MP I request your views on the current government policy
in relation to the use of unqualified teachers in free schools and academies. I
would appreciate it if you could consider the points below:
1.
We
have been told by politicians of all persuasions – most notably the current
government - that to be successful in the international market place we, as a
nation, need a well qualified workforce. Our schools are vital in ensuring this
– so much so that we spend millions testing that teachers and schools are doing
their job and turning out youngsters with the best possible qualifications.
2.
Young
people are told incessantly that “education, education, education” is the route
to success – get the best qualifications – it will make them more employable.
3.
Despite
these two government mantras we learn that for an increasing number of our
schools – free and academy – qualified teachers are not necessary to achieve
these goals. Am I missing something? Is there a fracture in the joined up
thinking?
4. My
son’s good degree in maths and economics from a “top” university was great but in order to be
the management accountant/finance director that he is he is required to have
appropriate CIMA accountancy qualifications. I have a master’s degree but if I
wished to drive a bus or an HGV I would need an appropriate professional
qualification. My plumber has A levels and could, had he wished, have gone to
university – but chose plumbing as his career. However, in order to fit my new
gas boiler he is required to be registered and qualified by the appropriate
body. If I chose to employ an unregistered/unqualified person to install my
boiler I would be advised by all of my foolishness.
5.
But,
despite the trend in every other walk of life to insist upon good and relevant professional
qualifications, Mr Gove believes that qualified teachers are not necessary in
our schools. As an ex-teacher, school leader and teacher trainer I am baffled.
Mr Gove believes, I assume, that those who run free schools and academies have
some mystical all knowing quality and knowledge that allows them to identify
those with good academic qualifications and who do not require any professional
training in the career they have chosen. “Ah”, the free school head teacher
might say to an aspiring young (unqualified) teacher,“I can see immediately that
you have a 1st in English
from a good university and because of that you will know all about what should
be taught in the curriculum for each particular age, stage and child, you will
be quite conversant and skilled with how children learn, about how to manage a
classroom, about your legal responsibilities in relation to the children, about
the latest initiatives in education and how they might impact upon your
work, about how to plan and evaluate
lesson – and how to build upon it, about the social, emotional, psychological,
intellectual and physical issues that might impact upon a child and his/her
ability to progress, about .........”
and so the list goes on. The whole thing is a nonsense and a dangerous
nonsense.
6.
As
someone who has spent over 40 years teaching and working in primary schools and
working with young teachers I have many examples which I could call on to
support the view that good academic qualifications do not necessarily make a
good teacher – there are indeed many other factors. But to allow classrooms to
be run by professionally unqualified people is not only wrong but verging on
the criminal.
7. Returning
to my first two points, however, it
would seem that despite the government mantras to the young to get the best
qualifications possible this imperative does not apply to those wishing to
teach in government sponsored free schools and academies. This opens up a
wonderland of opportunities – one can solve youth unemployment in the blink of
an eye – simply tell all the unemployed youngsters and "neets" [a young person "Not in Education, Employment or Training"] to be teachers- after all
qualifications are not necessary!
8. I
am also confused in so much that if qualifications are so very important to our
young and our nation is there not a small anomaly in that those who teach them
need not be qualified. In Mr Gove’s wonderland of qualifications, tests and
tables it would seem that a relevant exam question might be: “We allow those
charged with ensuring the best qualifications for our young to be themselves
unqualified? Discuss”
I would appreciate if you could address each of the points that I make.
Kind regards
And as I say, a couple of days ago I received my MP's response – see below:
Dear Mr. Beale,
Thank you very
much for your recent letter, expressing deep concerns about the Government’s
decision to revoke the ‘Further Education Teachers’ Qualifications (England)
Regulations 2007’. I was approached some weeks’ ago by several other
constituents, who share your concerns in general, although I appreciate that
yours are detailed in particular. I made a representation at the time and you
may be interested to see the enclosed copy of the response from the Minister
for Skills.
Mr. Hancock
confirms the Government’s commitment to raise the standards of Further
Education. Individual colleges now have responsibility for local needs and for
ensuring that the quality of teachers meets those needs. The regulations were
revoked after Lord Lingfield’s review of the relevant regulations and a public
consultation. They were revoked over the summer in order that the change would
be in force for the current academic year.
These changes are
not meant to lead to a lowering of standards, although they may mean that there
will now be opportunities for people with specialist skills, who may not
necessarily have professional teaching qualifications, to offer themselves for
consideration as teachers in particular circumstances. They will still be
required to meet “a new suite of qualifications that will become the standard
for teacher training in future, albeit not enforced by regulation”.
I hope that this
is somewhat reassuring. However, I am grateful to you for taking the trouble to
express your view from your experience as a headteacher and teacher trainer and
I have taken your points on board.
Yours sincerely,
The Rt.Hon. Kenneth Clarke, QC, MP
The Rt.Hon. Kenneth Clarke, QC, MP
 |
| Ken's letter - like the ancient fake statues in the Roman market it looks very grand - but is it pure, honest, sincere? |
It is manifestly obvious that my
MP has not read my letter with any kind of care – he has not in any way
addressed any of the points that I made but, more importantly, has gone off at a complete tangent
to discuss a totally different issue – the use of unqualified staff in colleges
of further education. He refers to a letter from another MP, which I have not
copied into this blog, but which is also concerned with a totally separate piece
of education legislation – the revoking of “Further Education Teachers’
Qualifications (England) Regulations 2007” - not the issues that I wrote about
or indeed anything that I know anything about. Not once does Mr Clarke's refer to free schools or academies - the very things that I wrote about. In short, this is obfuscation at its worst.
Now this might all seem pretty
small stuff – indeed it is. It is not about great matters of state or great
political scandals or debate. It is simply a matter of concern from a member of
the electorate and the expression of that concern to the person paid and
expected to represent the views and opinions of those who elected him. The
response from Clarke is dismissive and patronising. He clearly has made no effort to address any of the specific issues that I identified. I did
not expect him to agree with me – I expected a party line response (a sad
verdict on the times in which we live) – but at the least I expected a relevant
response. I would have been quite happy had he come back to me with vigorous
arguments to support his government's ideology on free schools and academies. I might not have liked it and would certainly have disagreed but I would
have accepted that greater minds than mine had thought this out and that it was
based upon some kind of wisdom and sustainable position. Instead I got no answer
that related in any way at all to the questions I had posed and the concerns that I
had raised.
 |
| A very distinguished Ken Clarke at the seat of power - but honestly answering a constituent's questions was all a bit beneath him. |
I have written back to Mr Clarke
and suggested that since he did not respond to my comments in any meaningful
way I can only assume that either he could not satisfactorily address them or
he chose not to. In either case the result is unfortunate. If he could not
answer my points then there appears to be an issue of his own competency and his party's policy. And, if he intentionally chose not to answer my
concerns then there is an issue of his integrity - his sincerity - he is seeking to obfuscate and mislead.
I have also suggested to him that his dismissive response is discourteous
and disrespectful to a member of his constituency. Finally I have suggested
that his lack of meaningful response showed that he (or a member of his staff)
had merely put together a few words
which they hoped would satisfy me – because, they hoped, I wouldn’t read them
very carefully. Or, it was hoped, that after a week or two I would have
forgotten or, to coin the modern phrase, “moved on”. I have advised him that I
have not and will not! I have every intention of hounding him upon this matter
– small as it is.
Although this is, indeed, a small matter,
and I do not expect to change government policy (nor should I, I am not a law
maker) it is, I believe, important. It is, as I suggested to Clarke another
step in the slow withering away of respect that I (and I suspect many others)
have for politicians and the political process. It illustrates perfectly the
increasingly obvious fact that these people are not in touch with the common
man and woman. The political and media bubble of Westminster (and, I suspect,
Washington and other western capitals) is totally removed from the daily life
of ordinary people and their small concerns and opinions. It is the sort of
thing that prompted the American guy that I mentioned in my previous blog (Rise & Fall - the Race to the Bottom) to
say, as he pointed at the Capitol, that his country’s problems were brought
about by “the clowns in there”.
 |
| Ken's a good "bloke" and well liked - by reputation a wit and raconteur in my area. But is he really "sincere" - or would he, in ancient Rome, have sold me a statue of wax? |
Throughout my life I have always
voted and felt that it was important to do so. Increasingly I feel this is a
waste of time – no longer do politicians and parties inspire and represent in
any meaningful way. Certainly, in the UK, no longer do they listen.
Increasingly in the UK political and personal integrity and sincerity are mutually exclusive
terms rarely uttered in the same breath as a named politician of any party.
Politicians might claim that they are going to make things better, they are
going to be more honest, sincere and open, they are going to listen to the electorate,
they are going to act swiftly to right wrongs but increasingly they are perceived as self
serving, dishonest and living in a world removed from the ordinary man and woman.
 |
| And as Lord Chancellor - very grand and daunting. In the courtroom he'd compel me to answer his interrogation sincerely or accuse me of contempt of court. |
This morning I read in the paper that the policemen involved in the "Plebgate" affair are to be hauled before MPs and forced to apologise to MP Andrew Mitchell or be charged with contempt of Parliament because they have not yet apologised for allegedly telling lies about Mitchell. I hold no brief for the wrongdoings of the police but I have to say this seems to me to be a bit like the pan calling the kettle black when MPs of all persuasions serially are less than honest or truthful to each other and, more importantly, to the electorate! I wonder when MPs as a bunch and, in my case Ken Clarke in particular, will be hauled before a committee of the electorate and forced to apologise for their obfuscation, insincerity, ambiguity and economy with the truth - or be charged with contempt of Parliament! Or maybe, perhaps, we should introduce a new legal charge: "contempt of the electorate"!
And, of course, that is the problem with the political class of the 21st century – their actions and words ensure that they are increasingly not seen as honourable or sincere but as deceitful and self serving - treating those who elect and pay them with contempt. Andrew Mitchell, like Ken Clarke, may well be a pleasant enough guy in the pub but he has consistently shown himself to be dishonourable, loud mouthed and insincere. Had he not been so in the first place, when he swore at the police when they refused to let him exit Downing Street through the gate that he wished, then the whole "Plebgate" affair would never have blown up. If I swore at the police I would accept that I was rightly, going to be punished - he (and politicians in general) however, seems to believe that he/they can behave as they want and are not subject to the normal conventions. In short, Mitchell is a rather boorish man and certainly not "Right Honourable" - although, like Clarke, he claims this honour and title. And this sad indictment has a darker side – for when ordinary people begin to lose belief and faith in their leaders democracy and good government is in peril and anyone can lead – extremism takes a foothold.
And, of course, that is the problem with the political class of the 21st century – their actions and words ensure that they are increasingly not seen as honourable or sincere but as deceitful and self serving - treating those who elect and pay them with contempt. Andrew Mitchell, like Ken Clarke, may well be a pleasant enough guy in the pub but he has consistently shown himself to be dishonourable, loud mouthed and insincere. Had he not been so in the first place, when he swore at the police when they refused to let him exit Downing Street through the gate that he wished, then the whole "Plebgate" affair would never have blown up. If I swore at the police I would accept that I was rightly, going to be punished - he (and politicians in general) however, seems to believe that he/they can behave as they want and are not subject to the normal conventions. In short, Mitchell is a rather boorish man and certainly not "Right Honourable" - although, like Clarke, he claims this honour and title. And this sad indictment has a darker side – for when ordinary people begin to lose belief and faith in their leaders democracy and good government is in peril and anyone can lead – extremism takes a foothold.
Ken Clarke, is a jovial and good “bloke”. He "talks the talk and walks the walk" but he should hang his head in shame - he is not honourable or sincere which seems to me to be a pretty serious failing for one holding such high office. For my part, however, I will, continue, as a matter of principle to pursue him, on this matter. I will not win - he will ignore and give me short shrift - but I will, perhaps, make him think a little more carefully of his response when I next write to him on some constituency matter or issue of government policy.
With you all the way on this one
ReplyDelete