"I always voted at my party's call, And I never thought of thinking for myself at all........"

One of my favourite pieces of Gilbert and Sullivan is Sir Joseph Porter’s gently scathing and witty song “Ruler of the Queen’s Navee” and one of its joys is that like much of Gilbert and Sullivan it is as relevant and as true today as it was when it was first written and performed in 1878.  In "HMS Pinafore" Sir Joseph is loved by all as a jovial, happy go lucky chap,  a raconteur and a good "bloke" - but totally bereft of ideas and lacking any understanding of  or any qualifications for the elevated position that he holds:

When I was a lad I served a term
As office boy to an Attorney's firm.
I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,
And I polished up the handle of the big front door.
I polished up that handle so carefullee
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — He polished up that handle so carefullee
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

As office boy I made such a mark
That they gave me the post of a junior clerk.
I served the writs with a smile so bland,
And I copied all the letters in a big round hand —
I copied all the letters in a hand so free,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — He copied all the letters in a hand so free,
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

In serving writs I made such a name
That an articled clerk I soon became;
I wore clean collars and a brand-new suit
For the pass examination at the Institute,
And that pass examination did so well for me,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — And that pass examination did so well for he,
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
That they took me into the partnership.
And that junior partnership, I ween,
Was the only ship that I ever had seen.
But that kind of ship so suited me,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — But that kind of ship so suited he,
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — He thought so little, they rewarded he
By making him the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule —
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!

CHORUS. — So stick close  to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!

Sir Joseph Porter - a good chap, well liked
but a bit of a buffoon with little  talent. Looks
and sounds like someone I know!

Sir Joseph’s immortal words lampooning the politicians and leaders of the Victorian age  have been rattling around my mind for the past couple of days since I got a reply from my MP Kenneth Clarke (see blog Nov. 2^nd   http://www.arbeale.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/incompetent-lacking-integrity-insincere.html ). For those who have not read the  blog it is about the unsatisfactory answer that I received from my MP, Ken Clarke, when I asked him about the government policy of allowing unqualified teachers to work in free schools and academies. The answer that he gave me at that point was wholly irrelevant and unsatisfactory, and all credit to him, he has apologised. His answer, however, is still merely a list of assertions and restating of government policy rather than answers to the comments that I made and the questions that I posed.

Mr Clarke’s reply to me:

Dear Mr. Beale,

Thank you very much for your further e-mail which did, I am afraid, point out that I made an error in first replying to you. I should have not have sent back the letter that I had received from Matthew Hancock, which was sent in response to a set of campaigning letters that I had received about the training of teachers in further education. You were of course writing to me about the proposal to allow academies and free schools to employ teachers without formal teaching qualifications. I do apologise.

I am afraid, however, that I still do not agree with the arguments that you make. We are trying to raise the standing of the teaching profession and we are trying to attract people into it with a wider range of experience in other professions and in business. It is extremely difficult for people with high educational qualifications and expertise to switch careers to teaching if they have to acquire a specific teaching qualification before they do so.

There are quite a lot of other people with high qualifications who do not find difficulty in becoming excellent teachers, even though they do have a specific teaching qualification. I therefore think that it is right to give individual head teachers and schools the ability to appraise and select their teaching staff without the absolute need, as a pre-condition, that they must have one of the specific teaching qualifications. There are, in practice, countless examples of people who can be excellent teachers, even though they lack the appropriate pedagogic course in their background.

My name's Cameron. Teaching qualifications - errr....why would 
I want those? I mean, my mother in law, Lady Astor, recommended 
me for the job in the media and then a chum from Eton got me 
fixed up  at Westminster and since then then I've dabbled in politics. 
So why would I need qualifications - it's only a teaching job. 
I've got all I need to bluff my way through the school day - having 
fooled Parliament and been in the media, kids will be cinch!

This is not to denigrate the perfectly good teaching qualifications which are available and I can accept that a high proportion of people who teach in schools will have obtained one of those qualifications. I am not persuaded, however, that it should remain an absolute barrier to everyone who does not possess a specific qualification for selection in a teaching post in academies. There is no evidence at all that this has damaged the achievements of the courses that have followed this policy.

I am sorry that we do not agree and that we wrote to you on the wrong subject when I first replied.

Yours sincerely,

And my further reply to him:

Dear Mr Clarke,

Thank you for your letter (6^th Nov. 2013) apologising for your error in your previous correspondence. Your apology is appreciated. I thank you, too, for your comments in relation to my concerns about the use of unqualified teachers in free schools and academies raised in my original mail.

I note that you say you do not agree with my arguments – and I accept that. I further note, however, that you do not actually answer the specific points made in my original communication but simply restate the government’s viewpoint. This seems to be that the professional standing of teachers will be raised and that teaching and schools will benefit from having unqualified staff on the payroll – which was exactly the essence of the points that I found both contradictory and incorrect. I still wonder, therefore, as I did in my original letter, why this work force philosphy does not apply, for example, to  my son’s company. He is Finance Director of a company and I wondered if he might employ unqualified staff in his accountancy department. I don't think he will! I know that much accountancy work is legally required to be undertaken by qualified personnel  and I wonder why teaching is so very different? My daughter is a senior IT worker in the banking system - I wonder if she might employ me in her team, after all, I have a degree and am skilled at sending e-mails, writing blogs and surfing the internet.  I notice, too, that the Bar Council require that anyone wishing to be a barrister must have: a degree in law, have undertaken a one year course of professional training and spent a year in chambers before he or she is allowed loose in our courts. A solicitor requires, as I understand it, in addition to their undergraduate degree two further professional qualifications – a Graduate Diploma in Law and a Law Practice qualification. Surely, if as you suggest, “the standing of the teaching profession” can be “raised” and if those without “specific teaching qualifications” can be “excellent teachers”  then the logic must apply elsewhere - to barristers, solicitors  or any other professional or employee. Methinks that in the event of my needing the services of a barrister to defend me at the Old Bailey or a solicitor to ensure that my last Will and Testament is correctly and legally drawn up I would be ill advised (and I suspect the legal profession would quickly tell me so) if I was to enlist the legal assistance of someone with no legal training or professional expertise no matter how enthusiastic, well intentioned  and well qualified they were in other areas. I do not for one minute suggest that teachers can be put on the same elevated plane as accountants, solicitors and barristers – as a profession we know our place. But the government’s arguments relating to the use of unqualified staff in schools is specious and, I suspect, far more to do with ensuring that there are sufficient teachers in classrooms and in shortage subjects than with ensuring excellence in schools.  Further, I can only assume that the commonly held view that “anyone can teach” is Mr Gove’s and your own view. But it seems that the rest of the nation’s employers and institutions do value the standing of  their employees and their qualifications  more highly -  they want only the best qualified. And,as I noted in my first letter to you, this, too, is the government's eternal plea and homily to the young - get the best qualifications that you can, the nation needs this and so do the young if they are to be employable. Rather perversely the rest of the employers throughout the nation are  requiring more and higher professional qualifications for their staff while schools are adoptionjg a dumbing down policy so far as their staff is concerned. I wonder why the Minister of Justice ( a post that you once held) does not instruct the legal profession to do away with their professional qualification requirements? It would - according to Mr Gove's and your logic - open up a wonderland of opportunities, work wonders for the legal profession and the professional standing of  QCs, barristers and solicitors generally! Sadly, I suspect legal feathers would be ruffled and the idea would go down like the proverbial "lead balloon" in the Old Bailey and the Inns of Court!

Teaching qualifications?...errrr no. But my previous job
will equip me well for good classroom discipline.

As for your assertion that “ There are quite a lot of other people with high qualifications who do not find difficulty in becoming excellent teachers........there are in practice countless examples of people who can be excellent teachers, even though they lack the appropriate pedagogic course....” . I can assure you that my experience is that you are profoundly mistaken. It is simply wishful thinking. As someone who has been closely involved and worked within the GTP programme – as an admissions tutor, as moderator, as course leader and as final assessor I can assure you that whilst there are undeniably vast numbers of highly qualified people from the commercial and business world who do, indeed, make fine teachers – they generally only do so after appropriate pedagogical training. For the vast majority (and, dare I say it, especially the men) they find it a huge shock when they actually get in the classroom. The complexity of the role, the responsibilities involved, the sheer workload  and the range of skills required frequently overwhelms them and there is a need for significant support . I well remember a number of years ago we appointed a middle aged man who had recently left the armed forces having held a senior Commission there for almost two decades. He had completed a PGCE and had done his final teaching practice at my school.  We were impressed, he had much potential and we had no hesitation in offering him a job. After he had been with us for a couple of weeks and as part of his NQT induction Programme, I discussed with him how he was settling in to his new role. I well remember his reply – indeed I wrote it down in his NQT Induction Portfolio.“Three years ago”  he said “I was in the Balkans helping with the UN Peace Keeping Force monitoring and supporting a very unstable population and situation. I have done several tours of Northern Ireland and all that that entails. I have dodged sniper’s bullets and been close to bombs going off.  But nothing in my past life prepared me for this – for the hard work, the responsibility, the emotional drainage at the end of each day, for the number of balls that I have to balance every minute of every day and for the level of detail required in planning a term’s work or an individual lesson. I love teaching and working with the kids –– but, I’ve got so much to learn. For the first time in my life I feel totally inadequate”.  

We were not a tough school but one in the leafy lanes of Rushcliffe with no overwhelming problems. But he was right – whatever Michael Gove and yourself would like to believe teaching is a highly complex and demanding job requiring a high degree of professional skills. The good news is that he was and still is a fine teacher and now  a senior member of staff in a school. He has brought much to the profession, the children and the schools in which he has worked – but he needed pedagogical training and support. 

And, one more point - my experience,  and I suspect the experience of countless others who know something about teachers and teaching, is that good teachers are very aware of their deficiencies, weaknesses and professional needs. Any teacher who tells you that he or she is "fine" and is not having any problems, can cope, has no worries, has got the job taped - is almost certainly not even aware of their deficiencies because either they are professionally "blind" or don't know what to look for. If I have no training and no knowledge of the professional requirements of a job how am I to know when I am failing? In the unlikely event of the Bar Council accepting me as a lawyer despite my having no qualifications then I might think I am doing a wonderful job until something dreadful happens. Maybe that doesn't matter too much if a few criminals go free or a few poor souls are incarcerated - after all they can appeal against their conviction or the law might eventually catch up with the bad guys. But in a school, while I am blithely jogging along without my  qualifications, limited in my professional awareness and blissfully unaware of my classroom failings then I am adversely affecting the chances of the children in my charge - and that can't be rectified by a quick appeal for justice or a swoop by the police - the moment has gone.

Yes, one very occasionally comes across a charismatic and unusually gifted communicator who can don the teacher’s mantle with some ease. In a long career, I have known one such person. I consider myself fortunate to have known that outstanding talent, they are, indeed, rare animals. The rest – even the most excellent of practitioners – get there by a combination of talent, professional development, hard work and pedagogical support – in short, by learning and gaining professional skills, insight and ultimately qualifications. To believe otherwise is a total nonsense and displays a total lack of insight into the issues involved.

However, in the unlikely event that your assertions have some credibility, then I wonder once again why the same criteria is not applied in other fields. I am quite sure that my high academic qualifications would fit me well to work in my son’s accountancy department, my daughter's IT team or in some legal chambers.  I could bring much enthusiasm, original thought and an undoubted creativity to the world of ledgers, invoices, computer programmes and wigs and gowns! The trouble is that I suspect my academic qualifications would probably not help me much since they don’t refer to accountancy, IT  or the law and worse, my creativity and enthusiasm would probably result in my son’s firm quickly being in serious trouble for financial irregularities, the Bank of England giving a whole new meaning to quantitative easing as money flooded out of every ATM or criminals walking out of the court,  free to wander the streets because of my incompetence and lack of professional skills!

I have had a huge and universally supportive response from the blog  that I posted on this matter (http://www.arbeale.blogspot.co.uk – November 2nd). Clearly, I touched a nerve and, as I argued in the blog, apart from the specific issues relating to the use of unqualified teachers – your response illustrates well how out of touch politicians are with the ordinary voter and how the man in the street increasingly perceives that different rules apply to politicians than to themselves. The consequences for democracy and society when an electorate becomes disillusioned are potentially profound and dismissive responses from MPs is not helpful. You would, of course, need to read my blog to understand the point that I raise here but to quote just a small part of it:

“Kenneth Clarke’s letter head informs me that he is "The Right Honourable", a QC and an MP. He has held many of the great Offices of State.......he is not a fool. He is well liked in my area, is a jovial “bloke” who loves jazz and cigars, is not overly pretentious and plays an active part in the life of the local community. Over the years, I fully accept, that he has said and done much good work (although I do not share his politics) and has frequently taken what I perceive as sound positions and judgements. But, sadly and worryingly, I am profoundly disappointed in him now. He signed his reply to me “Yours sincerely” – but he was not sincere, he was not honest in his comments ........ Were I to appear before him in a trial when he stood there bewigged, grand and daunting in his capacity as a QC and I answered his questions in the same manner that he answered those in my letter then I'm sure that I would get short shrift both from him and the judge. I would be accused of misleading the court or worse contempt of court. I would be forcefully reminded to answer the questions that he put in a clear and unambiguous manner. But, an MP, like Ken Clarke, it seems, is not subject to this sort of rule - he is allowed to deviate from the question asked, give imprecise answers and often ignore completely the questions posed. In short, he is allowed to be insincere, ambiguous, misleading and dishonourable”.

Professional qualifications? Oh yes, I got best in class at last
year's village dog show and and my master, Mr Gove, entered
me for the "Walkies" dog obedience programme. I passed and
got a bone and a rosette. My master told me that was more than
sufficient to teach in his Free Schools or an Academies -
in fact he said with a smile that 'I'd be best in class again!'

You will not, I know, agree with my comments – but this is increasingly how our leaders are perceived. In days gone by when politicians were largely hidden from the life of the ordinary man and forelock touching was the usual form of address then politicians could “get away with it”. But in an era of 24 hour news, social networking, instant communication, cameras in Parliament and the instant replay of comments those well used political clichés "transparency”, “open government” and “accountability”  apply now to politicians – individually and collectively as they do to any organisation, business or man in the street.  Implicit in these clichés is the notion of individual integrity, sincerity and honest word and action. Sadly, I – and many more - find these virtues increasingly lacking in our political leaders. In short, politicians of all persuasions have been increasingly “rumbled” when they are unable or unwilling to answer the question posed by some Jeremy Paxman or John  Humphrey interviewer - or in this case, by  a member of their constituency.

Having spent my career working in and leading schools I would have been taken to task – quite rightly – by the many parents and others who have sat in my classroom or office had I been unable or unwilling to answer their specific questions in relation to their child, his needs or her attainment. If I had simply repeated the school’s prospectus, or recited the school’s maths policy, or sidestepped their specific questions they would,  rightly, have complained and accused me of obfuscation or seeking to mislead them or not really caring about their particular concerns. In short, the parents would have felt that I was treating them with contempt – exactly as the QC would if I sidestepped his questions in court. But, this is what happens today with politicians  when they sidestep the issues and display an unwillingness or inability to answer the posed questions – is it any surprise that we hold them in ever greater contempt?

 But, in the final analysis, I was only a teacher – a job for which qualifications are, it seems, increasingly deemed unnecessary. Being a teacher is easy, anyone can do it, implies our esteemed Secretary of State for Education – and the mantra is mindlessly chanted back from the sidelines of Westminster. It reminds me of Sir Joseph Porter wonderful lampooning song in Gilbert and Sullivan’s “HMS Pinafore”:

“I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all”.

In Victorian England Sir Joseph, in his ivory tower, could get away with it – in 2013, the age of transparency, accountability and open government not so!

Ken Clarke or is it Sir Joseph?

Sadly and worryingly, however, it is my belief that when politicians of any persuasion, begin to lose touch with the reality of those whom they govern then they soon fall into disrepute and are seen as at best an irrelevance or at worst a threat. As the membership in political parties continues to decline and the media increasingly highlights the mismatch in the views of politicians and the man in the street then there are profound implications for the future of democracy. Michael Gove has consistently shown a complete lack of knowledge of and empathy for the area for which he has responsibility – and, in addition, a total disregard for wider educational opinion, be it parental or expert. He is, as I said in my blog, a fool.  Gilbert and Sullivan would have made a wonderful Savoy Opera of the man’s incompetent bungling and the madcap and dangerous policies he  invents as he lies in bed each night.  And, come to think of it, I know of the perfect candidate for the part of Sir Joseph Porter, indeed, a veritable "dead ringer" for the part - an  MP known for his jovial outlook, his love of cigars, his ability as a raconteur and good "bloke" - loved by all but, as I have found, just like Sir Joseph - difficult to pin down when one asks a specific question.   I had hoped for better from Ken Clarke. I was wrong.

Kind regards,

I do not anticipate a response – maybe I will be lucky. Maybe readers will think that I am wrong or that this issue is of little consequence – and maybe it is. But it is the bedrock of democracy and our system of government to question and where necessary to oppose. It is only in doing so that those in power can know the wishes of the electorate and thus be held in check. As I have argued before as people become increasingly disaffected with politics and politicians and fail to vote, play no part in the process or simply drop out then the way is open for extremism to creep in. In the end we get the government and the politicians that we deserve – to behave like sheep and simply accept rather than question, argue and oppose guarantees that we will get the worst kind of leaders and leadership.