Examination of witnesses (Questions 60
- 75)
WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2000
LORD PUTTNAM
and MS CAROL
ADAMS
Chairman
60. You have our admiration, Lord Puttnam. I
have now ticked off that you have got over all the points that
you made in your recent speech in the House of Lords. That was
the final one.
(Lord Puttnam) It shows how limited my font of ideas
is!
Mr O'Brien
61. As a single supplementary to that, all those
sentiments and words I am sure we would all agree with and would
share in that aspiration. Tying that together with an earlier
answer you gave, I am just feeling a bit uneasy at the moment
as to whether there is any clarity as to whether you are going
to be duplicating or even potentially supplanting what the unions
have perceived as their own role in seeking to enhance the status
and the professionalism of teachers. That is where I have got
a concern, not to imply any criticism but a concern, that there
is potential duplication and confusion between the role of unions
in the case of teachers and the role of the GTC, given that in
the equivalent areas of professional bodies there is not an equivalent
of those dual representational bodies.
(Lord Puttnam) I am still a member of a union and
I chaired my union in the 1970s. I think the essential difference
is that the role of unions is to protect their members and to
be cautious and look out for the manner in which change could
disadvantage them. Our role is the exact opposite, it is to present
to the teaching profession the potential the profession has and
then in turn to represent that potential to Government so that
Government recognises it and Government makes the necessary arrangements
to optimise the teaching profession. I think these two things
are somewhat different. I went to a marvellous debate the other
day during which John Evans, the General Secretary of the Trades
Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, said quite rightly, "our
job is to ensure that when there is a downturn", and he believes
there will be a downturn in the European economy, "our
members suffer as little as possible". That seems to me a
perfectly admirable and honest way for a union leader to see their
role. Our job is not that, our job is to optimise the opportunities
for the profession and to make sure that Government and the public
quite generally understand those opportunities and push to take
advantage of them.
Chairman
62. Is there not a danger, Lord Puttnam, given
the period of time and experience of this new body, that it will
have a tendency to move to a more conservative position—with
a small "c"—because anybody historically who has
looked after the status of the profession does become very resistant
to anything that challenges it? I know that in a sense you have
come to this job and your activity in other educational spheres
is one of a moderniser and a changer but is there an irony perhaps
that a mark of its success will be its ability to resist change
rather than to help promote change?
(Lord Puttnam) I would be mortified if in the next
ten years that proved to be the case. The only example I can offer
is what I think we have achieved at Sunderland. I am Chancellor
of the University of Sunderland and it is a very unusual university.
It is a university that made a decision early on to serve its
community and I think we have served our community quite wonderfully.
We have bound the community together, we have created jobs and
we have set out to be central to the future of our region. There
are members of the faculty who wish we would be somewhat closer
to a traditional university and possibly even enhance our research
capacity but I and successive Vice Chancellors have never seen
that as the role of Sunderland. Our role was there to change the
perception of universities and to change the perception of what
a university could do for a community. I would like to think that
somewhere in there there is a model for the GTC.
63. Is it the only body, because taking the
view of a couple of our Members on the Committee, one would almost
say why does one need another body, there are unions there, there
is such a plethora of bodies in the teaching world, in the educational
world, when one calls witnesses and so on, one almost feels the
profession is overburdened and, in fact, some teachers have said
"oh, not another body"? That was their first reaction
to the setting up of the GTC. Is there not a level at which it
is just another body?
(Lord Puttnam) I think that is a very, very reasonable
question and the only honest answer is, having talked to a great
number of teachers, my sense is that what's been lacking is a
voice, a unified voice, for the ambitious, committed core membership
of the profession. The primary concerns of the unions, the fragmentation
of the unions, has not made that possible. Certainly the public
perception of the unions, which has been most unfortunate and
not the unions' fault, has made that difficult. If we are
going to move forward then we need to move forward with a sense
among the general public that here is an admirable profession
that understands its problems, understands its duties, is not
shrill, and if there is one issue I would like to really address
it is that it is not shrill, but it bases its future and
its ambitions for its future on research, opportunity and competence.
I do not think that visibly exists at present. Possibly it should
have done but I do not believe that it has.
(Ms Adams) Could I add to that, Chairman. If we felt
that everything was well with the state of our teachers we perhaps
might be concerned that this body is not needed. All the information
that I get from teachers, from those who know teachers and work
with teachers, is that there are some things that are not right
in our profession and that suggests to me that we have not addressed
a number of issues, we have not found a way of representing the
views and the aspirations or motivation of those thousands of
teachers. That would give encouragement to us that this body is
needed.
64. Would I be right in saying that in this
instance here is the Government saying "look, everything
is not right so we are going to set up a body for teachers"
rather than just coming from the grass roots with teachers saying
"we really do need", as I think Lord Puttnam said in
his introduction, "a Royal Society or an Institute of Teaching",
that was set up in 1908? That presumably came from a grass roots
feeling in the profession that it was needed rather than having
anything imposed on it.
(Lord Puttnam) My understanding is there has been
a long, very honourable strain within the profession that has
wanted a GTC, that this is something overdue and the reasons for
not having it have never really been adequately explained. We
are incredibly fortunate to have John Tomlinson as the Deputy
Chairman who has fought probably harder and longer than anyone
in this country for the reation of a GTC. Certainly were he here
today he ould give you chapter and verse on why there is not,
why there has not been and why there needs to be.
Mr St Aubyn
65. In this context I wonder if we might focus
on the composition of the new body a little bit longer. I understand
there will be 25 elected teachers and that people voting in those
elections have to have already registered. What proportion of
primary and secondary school teachers have, in fact, registered
to vote in those elections?
(Ms Adams) It is around about two-thirds. We have
450,000 teachers and 340,000 have registered. We do not, as yet,
know from the electoral body that organised the elections whether
all of those 340,000 are practising teachers in our schools, some
of them may have been other people who have a right to vote as
to qualified teacher status. I am still awaiting that information.
One would assume that the majority of those who registered are
practising teachers. By the standards of other elections we are
told that is a very healthy figure.
66. Of the 22 posts available on the body for
primary and secondary school teachers, how broad a range of choice
are the voters going to get?
(Ms Adams) Altogether 208 candidates have stood and
the vast majority of those are in the sectors of primary and secondary
teachers.
67. In the context of your earlier remarks about
gauging the feeling of the teaching profession, do you think that
this particular group, the directly elected group, has an important
role to play?
(Lord Puttnam) Yes, absolutely. If we are making the
right decisions and moving forward in an intelligent way they
will necessarily be the principal advocates of the GTC.
68. Do you see perhaps in time the proportion
which is directly elected, at the moment it is only 25 out of
64, should perhaps be a much bigger proportion of the overall
volume?
(Lord Puttnam) I do not know. We were talking about
the possibility that there should be a greater emphasis on lay
persons. All I do hope is that there is not a decision to turn
the 64 into 84, that would not help anybody, least of all the
Chairman.
Chairman: Lord Puttnam, can I explain that Evan
Harris was here at the very beginning of our proceedings but he
had to go to a Standing Committee. He did tell us that he wanted
to come back and has a couple of questions for you. Can I ask
Evan to come in.
Mr Harris
69. I do apologise. I am sure you would be the
first to agree that there are not enough Liberal Democrats to
cover everything in the House. Do you think that consenting sexual
relationships between a 17 year old, say, and a 20 year old teacher
in a large further education college who does not teach that 17
year old is a matter for the criminal law or for disciplinary
proceedings and self-regulation?
(Lord Puttnam) As far as the GTC is concerned, it
is a matter for the Secretary of State.
70. I am really seeking your views as the head
of the GTC. If there were potential reforms to the GTC to enable
it to cover these matters like other professional bodies do, would
you say that the GTC would be the appropriate vehicle or do you
need to have criminal law involved?
(Lord Puttnam) I think we have got so much ground
to cover in the first five years of the GTC's existence that to
take on any more frankly would be quite impossible. It may well
be that five years from now a future Secretary of State might
decide to cede some of their present powers to the GTC at which
point, interestingly enough, that would throw into question whether
we had the exact right balance of membership because on a question
like yours I would like to see represented on the GTC one or two
people who could give a really expert view on that as a specific.
It's unlikely to happen on my watch.
71. Are you saying that the GTC should not be
looking at these disciplinary matters at the moment in the same
way the General Medical Council does, for example? You say that
it is a matter for the Secretary of State and at the moment that
may be the case. I think it is a disciplinary matter for the employing
authority at the moment and the fear is that someone may be disciplined
by the employing authority at the moment and then go and work
somewhere else because there is no register, as it were, of people
who are struck off, so there is no ability for new employers to
discern that. The Government is putting legislation before the
House this week to do that through criminal law to ensure that
someone has a criminal record and will use the existing register
of criminal offenders and sex offenders. I am wondering what your
perspective is as someone who, when the GTC comes into play, may
well find that they are asked by teachers to take on this role
rather than leave it to criminal law or happenstance.
(Lord Puttnam) When you were out of the room I was
talking about the media balance that related to the coverage of
teachers teaching, schooling, etc. One of the interesting things
is that when the GTC was first formulated there was an absurd
over-obsession on the disciplinary component of it's powers and
a ridiculous under-appreciation of all the other jobs the GTC
has been given to get on with, which are for the most part the
vital jobs, ie the way the profession sees itself, improved professionalism,
improved professional standards. That is 85 per cent, 95 per cent,
if you like, of the activity that Carol and I are currently engaged
in. I hope that the disciplinary component will be a lot less
than five per cent. I do not want to create any feeding frenzy
or any sense that the balance is different from that. These are
issues that are important but they are very rare, extremely rare
happily. At the moment the Secretary of State has decided to keep
those particular issues to himself. If a future Secretary of State
at another time, the GTC having proved itself, decides to give
the GTC powers in these areas that would be up to them. From my
point of view, to be absolutely candid, I would prefer that our
disciplinary component remained, as it were, not so much on the
back burner but the least of our concerns because I do
not think that disciplining teachers is in any respect the biggest
single issue. The biggest single issue is the encouragement of
teachers, improvement of morale and the sense of professionalism
among teachers. That is overwhelmingly more important than both
of the issues you have just touched on to my way of thinking.
Mr Marsden
72. I understand entirely the point that you
are making about now allowing these contentious issues to demand
everything that you are doing but inevitably, of course, contentious
issues force their way to the front and particularly as far as
the role of teachers is concerned. We have one at the moment in
the case of Section 28. If you wish to give me your views on Section
28 I would be delighted to hear them. My question is more as to
whether you feel that the debate about teachers' responsibilities
under such things that are brought forward, such as Section 28,
is something that should be a legitimate part of your work on
the GTC and, if it is a legitimate part of your work, at what
level?
(Lord Puttnam) I think it would become a legitimate
part of the work of the GTC if the GTC, on behalf of all teachers,
decided that it wished to make it part of its remit. At that point
I think it would be perfectly legitimate for the GTC itself to
go to the Secretary of State and say "for the following reasons,
we have now been in existence for five years, we believe we have
handled the disciplinary areas that we have been asked to handle
with great sensitivity and intelligence, it is the general view
of teachers that we could extend that sort of sensitivity and
intelligence and indeed, as it were, that `on the ground' knowledge
to a point where we can take on these other areas". I would
like to see the teachers making the move to do that, as it were,
rather than it being imposed on them. It is a sensitive area.
Professionals sitting as judge and jury on other rofessionals
is a difficult thing to do. I think the professional body has
to put its hand up and say "we think we are now sufficiently
competent and we have sufficient expertise to be able to take
on these other very tricky areas".
Chairman
73. Lord Puttnam, we are winding down now but
can I take you back briefly to an issue that we touched on at
the beginning of this session and that was the role of managers
as opposed to teachers. Some of us on this Committee, and this
is not a Committee view, have been discussing that the Chief Executive
of the National School Leadership College has been advertised
once or twice already and there was an intention that a qualified
teacher should take that position. I have always been surprised
at this because it seems to me that a management role is something
that could be equally successful in that position. Do you have
a view on that? Has it only got to be a teacher or could it be
filled by someone rather different?
(Lord Puttnam) I have a view and my view is if you
are lucky enough to find someone who is a practising teacher and
who has superb management qualities, all well and good. If you
are unable to find that human being you are better off appointing
someone with superb management qualities who can learn the teaching
component rather than the other way around. The worst of all worlds
is to appoint the best teacher you can who is a reasonably competent
manager. I have an interesting experience of this. For many years
I was Chairman of Survival, the wildlife programme, and
there was endless debate as to whether we should train naturalists
in how to use a camera or teach cameramen more about the natural
world. In the end it became very apparent that it was much quicker,
simpler and easier and you got a far better product at the end
of the day if you found committed naturalists and put them through
a crash course on how to become a wildlife cinematographer. think
the analogy holds, what we are looking for at the National School
Leadership College is a superb manager or a superb leader. It
would be wonderful if we could find that from the teaching profession
but if we cannot I would still opt for the best leader
I could lay my hands on.
74. Thank you. Some people say that because
of the number of quangos you are associated with, or have been
associated with, you would be an expert for us to ask, because
we are developing our relationship as a Select Committee and I
am very interested in the way in which Select Committees actually
hold part of the process of holding quangos to account. Given
your broad experience in this, what role do you see in the relationship
between quangos and Select Committees?
(Lord Puttnam) One of the very first things we did
at NESTA was appear before the Science and Technology Select Committee[4]
and I found it to be a very, very useful exercise because the
final report of that Committee[5]
urged us, as I had hoped, to be more daring. The desire
of the Committee, the unanimous desire of the Committee, was that
NESTA used the powers it had and was daring irrespective of some
of the constraints the Treasury might wish to throw around its
shoulders. The Select Committee worked marvellously in that instance.
I am a genuine fan of the system. I would be even happier if two
Members of the House of Lords joined you because I think it would
be a very good thing to have joint parliamentary committees. I
have already given evidence on the reform of the House of Lords
to Lord Wakeham saying exactly that. I liked enormously your opening
comment about a form of confirmation hearing because, you see,
it is one thing to be appointed by the Secretary of State, it
is another thing even to be accepted by teachers, but to be felt
to be the right person or group of people by Parliament as a whole
is terribly, terribly important. What we are going to be engaged
in is not a party political issue, it is actually trying to lay
down the foundations of a profession that will serve this country
well irrespective of what party is in power over the next 50 years.
In that sense, endorsement or even advice and criticism by a Committee
like this is very useful and very helpful both publicly and personally.
75. Lord Puttnam, I think we have got rid of
all of our questions now, except one from me. Do you remember
what music featured on the soundtrack to Blackboard Jungle?
(Lord Puttnam) Rock Around The Clock, 1955.
Chairman: I think we give a good point for that
last answer. There is one more announcement I wish to make before
Lord Puttnam goes and that is on a suitable day, the Ides of March,
we are interviewing Chris Woodhead to discuss his Annual Report.
We welcome comments before then from parents, teachers, from children,
even from our two witnesses today, on what should be the themes
of that public discussion. Lord Puttnam, Ms Adams, thank you very
much for your attendance.
4 HC472-i, Session 1998-99. Back
5 Second Report of Session 1998-99 from the Science and Technology
Committee, The National Endowment for Science, Technology and
the Arts (HC472). Back
|
