by Stephen Tall on February 2, 2014
Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Some 750 party members responded – thank you – and we’ve been publishing the full results.
(There were a couple of results I ran out of time to publish during the Christmas holiday period – I’m publishing them this week.)
Yesterday I reported the results of what party members think about school structures. Today we look at your views on teachers and the curriculum…
59% of Lib Dems say teachers employed by state-funded schools should have formal teaching qualifications
Thinking about the choices that schools have over who they employ and what they teach… Which of the following best reflects your view?
59% – Schools should only be allowed to employ people with formal teaching qualifications as teachers
38% – Schools should be allowed to employ people with other experience, but no formal teaching qualifications, as teachers if they believe they are suitably qualified
2% – Don’t know
Nick Clegg made his view clear last autumn when he stated that anyone employed by a school to teach should either have a formal professional qualification or be working towards one. And it looks like the majority of Lib Dem members agree, with 59% saying they expect schools only to employ qualified teachers. However, a substantial minority (38%) back a more light-touch approach, with schools having the freedom to appoint unqualified teachers – though, as you’ll see from the comments below, this support often included caveats.
• If people are well qualified in other ways, I see no reason why they shouldn’t go through the same process as everyone else to gain the teaching element of the qualification. It would be a good idea for Lib Dems to point out that there is also an issue wioth schools who recruit those who have a PGCE but whose subjkect qualifications are inadequate, or who are used to teach subjects they are not sufficiently qualified in.
• I’d expect teachers without teaching qualifications to only be employed exceptionally
• If schools are outside of local authority control, it is ESSENTIAL, that they are closely controlled by some other body, to whom parents can complain / raise concerns.
• Doctors, nurses, accountants, lawyers, architects, surveyors etc. have be formally qualified. So must teachers
• with strict controls and supervision
• It should be expected that all school staff have or be taking some teaching qualifications
• In vocational subjects, proper working experience might be more important than teaching qualifications. But in standard academic subjects, a teaching qualification is crucial.
• All these questions are too simplistic. Thus – if a school is run for profit, it is essential to insist on qualified staff, or else there is bound to be pressure to employ cheap unqualified staff. If a school is non-profit the same does not necessarily apply.
• You need trained teachers – considering that they are providing a service and dealing with the future of the country. We don’t have un-trained police officers, and we should not use un-trained teachers. Teachers need to be trained, so that they are equipped for the job that they do.
• As long as people have a decent degree or degree equivalent in their subject, they should be allowed to teach,with in house training and support on teaching techniques. They may bring more flexibility and be more enthusiastic about their subject
• This is an attack on teachers, and if allowed will drive down wages and working conditions.
• Some qualification is necessary but I support the principal of bringing in people with other skills.
• We would not allow unqualified doctors loose on our children’s bodies so why is different when it’s their minds at stake?
• Would anyone want an unqualified lawyer representing them in court or an unqualified architect designing their house?
• But they should have to report publicly the numbers.
• Plus people training for such qualifications
• Those without formal qualifications should work toward getting them.
• Maybe what they should do is make it easier for people to add teaching qualifications to their other qualifications. e.g. scientist to take a streamed course to learn how to teach instead of the whole teaching degree on top of the one they already have. This could be done partly while working at the school under the supervision of experienced teacher
• The vast majority of class teachers and teachers delivering most parts of the curriculum should be qualified. There may be scope for some exceptions especially for specialist teaching.
61% back compulsory National Curriculum for all schools
And which of the following best reflects your view?
61% – The national curriculum should be compulsory for all schools, setting out what all schools must teach while being free to include other subjects or topics of their choice
36% – The national curriculum should only be for guidance, and schools should be allowed to teach different things if they wish
3% – Don’t know
This produced a similar result: most Lib Dems (61%) want a compulsory national curriculum prescribing what must be taught, with a substantial minority (36%) preferring to let schools decide. However, as can be seen from the comments below, there was considerable backing for a slimmed-down curriculum – a minimum guarantee of standards, but with maximum freedom for schools to teach around it.
• The curriculum should be mandatory, but should be made far less prescriptive at the same time.
• NC should be restricted to core subjects
• A core curriculum is sensible in a modern state.
• There should be a framework of essential skills and topics. A curriculum will also stop things like creationism sneaking into the schools.
• But a minimum curriculum. Not a return to Labour’s top down approach.
• Provided the NC only covers core subjects, English, mats, science and PE.
• I’m sick of people shoving ideology into the curriculum.
• To allow more freedom for specialisms in schools the national curriculum should beset on basic subjects allowing freedom to fill the rest of the school timetable with subjects that fit the need of the children.
• But we should have a much shorter, looser NC.
• We need some flexibility according to context. But basics are basics.
• Deeply unfair if pupils are not being taught on a level playing field
• The NC provides a baseline against which all students can be judges from the Tyne to the Tamar to the Thames
• There should be a core of compulsory subjects but more time and latitude for other subjects.
• But that’s not to say the national curriculum as it stands is a good thing, or is the right size.
• Again, hope the Education Committee are not dim.
• Please stop them teaching creationism anywhere!
• The national curriculum should be a smaller core with schools given the freedom to teach beyond it
• The national Curriculum is too narrow and does not allow for the areas interests, needs and skills.
• The current national curriculum is too prescriptive and should only have a few core elements.
• But the compulsory elements should be fewer
• This includes private schools.
• A core national curriculum should be taught by all schools but there should be plenty of flexibility and choice around it.
• There needs to be a basic minimum standard of education in important areas.
• It should encapsulate a range of objectives covering what we expect our children to need in order to lead happy and productive lives and be as narrow as feasibly possible. What shouldn’t happen is government trying to interfere in HOW a child is taught
• The important words you are missing are “slimmed-down”.
• But the National Curriculum should be thinned down(especially in younger years) and more room given for other areas & subjects.
• A national curriculum is illiberal. Any system with a centrally required curriculum plus freedom to teach other things will squeeze out the others as national curriculum results will be seen as most important and there will be constant pressure for subjects that are suffering to be brought inside the national curriculum to protect them – which then leaves even less room for initiative.
• But the scope of the national curriculum needs to be cut down within each subject, to give schools and teachers a degree of flexibility in what they choose to teach.
* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and editor of the 2013 publication, The Coalition and Beyond: Liberal Reforms for the Decade Ahead. He is also a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum and writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.