| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.3 pm
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): I have agreed to speak with my usual brevity in the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make her maiden speech.
On behalf of Liberal Democrat Members, I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the teaching profession. Sadly, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said. I am sad because I, too, remember the 18 years under the previous Administration, when I was a head teacher. The Conservative party invented bureaucracy in our schools, but she has repented of the evil doings of former Secretaries of State--I remember Mr. Patten very well--and for every sinner who repents we rejoice.
Teachers have to meet the challenge of change--no Member of the House would disagree with that--and we support the efforts of the Government, the teacher unions and the profession to do so. Sir Claus Moser recently commented that
- uniquely, education alone is both the cause and the consequence of national prosperity . . .
- Teachers are the agents for change in society--they have the ability not just to alter this country for the better, but to actually secure its future. No other sector of the population can do that . . .
-
At last year's National Association of Head Teachers conference, those comments were echoed by the Prime Minister. He said:
I know that the success of what we are trying to do will succeed or fail on the efforts of individual teachers in every classroom in the country . . .
Whatever criticisms the Secretary of State may make of me or of my party's policies, I hope that he will not criticise my commitment to the teaching profession or my admiration for much of the work that goes on in so many schools throughout the country. However, where is the evidence that the Prime Minister's proud words and aspirations are being put into action? Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, the profession feels betrayed by a Government who promised to rescue it from the draconian clutches of the previous Administration, but who have succeeded only in further emasculation. They ooze good intention, but simply will not listen to the profession. Teachers are regarded as part of the problem rather than most of the solution, and the same applies to others in respect of many of their public service policies.
A three-year delay in tackling the challenges that the Government faced on taking office, and there were many, will cost the nation dear. Since 1997, my party has warned the Department for Education and Employment that there would be a crisis in our classrooms unless recruitment and retention became a top priority. That crisis has become a reality. There is a record number of vacancies for our schools this September, and last week, for the first time in its history, The Times Educational Supplement ran to 500 pages, 440 of which were filled with job vacancies.
Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the vacancies represent 0.8 per cent. of the total number of teaching posts?
Mr. Willis: Whether the vacancies represent 0.8, 1 or 1.5 per cent. of the number of posts, a significant number of schools are desperately trying to recruit teachers for next September. Most of those 440 pages advertised vacancies for maths, science and modern language secondary school teachers. Maths vacancies counted for 20 per cent. of all advertised vacancies.
Mrs. May: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the official vacancy figures to which the Secretary of State referred underestimate the situation in our schools? They show about 2,600 vacancies, but the figure of 16,600 for supply teachers represents a more accurate picture.
Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments. The Secretary of State referred to the January 1999 figures, which are the latest available. According to the House of Commons Library, the number of secondary school vacancies has increased by 25 per cent. since 1997. Between 1988 and 1997--the so-called bad years of the Tory Administration--there was a 60 per cent. fall. However, perhaps more disturbingly, the number of unqualified teachers working in our schools has risen by a staggering 19 per cent. That alludes to the hon. Lady's point. Most of the vacancies are in London, because many
London schools, especially schools in inner-London boroughs, cannot recruit anyone to put before children. That really is an indictment.
Mr. Blunkett: I am keen that no one out there should be misled. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us his definition of "unqualified teachers".
Mr. Willis: I am happy to give the Secretary of State that definition. An unqualified teacher is a teacher who does not have qualified-teacher status--and I regard a teacher with qualified-teacher status as a qualified teacher. If the Secretary of State is saying that the Government intend to deal with the teacher crisis by allowing anyone to teach our children--actually to appear before a class of youngsters--he ought to confirm that now.
Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to speak.
I am prepared to accept equivalent qualified-teacher status from countries that we recognise, with the same quality of training, in order to provide the access that we expect from them for those who receive qualified-teacher status here. What has just been said is an insult to New Zealand and Australian teachers who come to our country and do a good job.
Mr. Willis: I do not recall mentioning New Zealand and Australian teachers, and I think Hansard will record that I did not. I did, however, mention a definition of unqualified teachers. I have given the Secretary of State a clear definition of what I would term an unqualified teacher. It is rather sad that he now says that if we are to staff London schools--40 per cent. of teacher vacancies throughout the country are in London primary schools, and 30 per cent. are in London secondary schools--we should bring teachers in from the Commonwealth. If that is the Government's policy, my goodness, we have reached a sorry state of affairs.
A recent ICM poll declared that a third of teachers under 35 wanted to leave the profession within 10 years, and 50 per cent. within 15 years. We need not look far for the reasons. Teaching is fast becoming a "technician" activity under the present Government: teachers are told what to teach, when to teach, how to teach, how to assess and how to record, and somehow that is regarded as being part of the profession. Teachers are bombarded by bureaucracy and form-filling to an extent that beggars belief.
The Secretary of State referred to the number of documents that had been released since January. During three months of probing, his Department refused time and again to respond to my requests. By March 2000, it had sent each school 366 pieces of paperwork since May 1997: 73 consultation papers, 220 guidance documents, 58 data collection documents, and 15 separate letters from Ministers. Under the present Government, schools have received 18 documents a month, rather than the 2.5 per week that have been referred to over the past few months. If we add the 1,291 separate pieces of paperwork sent to local education authorities, many of which compound the bureaucracy that already exists in schools, we can see why teachers want to get out.
There is no end in sight, however. It seems that nowadays Ministers cannot make a comment without issuing a new target. At present, teachers are coping with the 4,585 targets set by the Government, the 129,330 targets set by LEAs and the 306,430,710 targets set for individual children--I thought the Secretary of State would like that! Teachers must report on all those targets. In the words of Lord Puttnam, teachers need to be
- in charge of their lives and their jobs.
When the distressing figures about staff illness came out last week, showing that last year 60 per cent. of full-time teachers took some sick leave and that more than 2.5 million days were lost, what was the Government's response? It was not to look for reasons, or to offer sympathy; it was to set a target for schools to reduce the incidence of sickness, because it was affecting children's education. Well, of course it is. Stress does not just affect our children's education; it permanently disables some good teachers, drives others out of the classroom, and--although the Secretary of State rather sadly laughs at this--sends others to early graves.
There is real evidence that teachers are under huge stress. According to their review body, they are working an average of 60 hours a week. The review body's recommendation to the Government was clear:
- Action should be taken to ensure that the hours worked by all teachers are kept within reasonable bounds and that they have reasonable rest periods and breaks.
- the most Stalinist department I have ever come across.
In-depth surveys by the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers and the National Union of Teachers have indicated that, in terms of stress, work load and added value, the biggest problem facing schools is bureaucracy. Is this the climate in which we hope to recruit our brightest and best young graduates to the teaching profession? "Everyone remembers a good teacher", says the advertisement, but soon we will be asked, "Will anyone good want to become a teacher?"
The challenge for the Government is not how to reward 30 per cent. of teachers by demanding that they jump through yet more bureaucratic hoops, but how teachers are to be liberated in schools. No one will be attracted to, and few will stay in, a profession that does not value the professional ethics. Ministers must understand that creative teachers cannot be bred in captivity. We echo the call for our teachers to be allowed to teach and our children to be allowed to learn: then, and only then, will our teachers realise their potential, and the potential of their profession.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |