| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Henley: I do not know how far the right reverend Prelate wished to go in his amendment, but it would mean only that the Secretary of State in making regulations may include a specific requirement about representatives from voluntary schools, not that she must. That is no substantive advance on the provisions already in paragraph 15(2)(c) inserted by Clause 63. That already allows for the regulations to make provision for the composition of a management committee, including representatives of local schools.
It might be useful if I explain why there is a reference on the face of the Bill to grant-maintained schools and not to voluntary schools or indeed any other category of school. This was necessary to remove any doubts about the vires of regulations that would require local education authorities which maintained PRUs to include on their units' management committees representatives of schools not maintained by the LEA. The same considerations do not apply to voluntary schools. I hope that that satisfies the right reverend Prelate.
1.30 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall read his reply carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 201A:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause--
(" .--(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as the General Teaching Council for England and Wales.
(2) A body established under this section shall have the functions of advising the Secretary of State as to the following--
(a) rules and guidance as to the professional conduct and discipline of teachers;
(b) the qualifications to be required of persons seeking to become or remain teachers;
(c) the professional development and appraisal of teachers;
(d) such matters, including matters relating to education or the employment of teachers or other persons connected with education, as the Council may consider relevant to the promotion of good teaching in England and Wales; and
(e) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.").
The noble Lord said: We have today discussed many important issues. The establishment of a general teaching council is probably one of the most important issues that we shall discuss today, at least for the teaching profession. Late though the hour is, I believe that we must spend a little time on it to do it justice. It was discussed at considerable length in the other place at various stages. In the other place the Minister, Mr. Eric Forth, said in Committee:
If I correctly recall, in the Second Reading debate in this Chamber the Minister was not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of a general teaching council and felt that the time might well have come for it. This is the opportunity. The purpose of this amendment is to require the establishment of a general teaching council.
There is a strong body of professional opinion that supports the notion that something must be done to raise the morale and status of the teaching profession. I now meet a large number of teachers both at home and by virtue of my duties in your Lordships' House. I am constantly struck by just how low morale is in the teaching profession. It is too late--and perhaps this is not the time--to discuss why that is so but that it is is beyond doubt. A front page story in The Times Educational Supplement on 10th January of this year reported a survey that had been carried out by that newspaper which showed that morale was at an all-time low. Teachers felt oppressed by perpetual public criticism and believed that their professionalism was undermined by government interference, constant change and not knowing where they were. More teachers are retiring early through stress-related illness and other reasons than ever before.
No one defends poor teachers or poor performance. That applies most of all to teachers themselves, who in my experience are generally most critical of bad teachers. No one argues that incompetence should be condoned. But generalised abuse of an entire profession, as is practised in some parts of the press, fails to address the shortcomings of the small minority of poor teachers. Instead, it depresses and casts down the great majority of good and competent professionals. Commercial management practice and educational theory agree that praise for good work and encouragement for individuals to take responsibility for their own development raise morale and performance at the same time. I contrast that with the words, too often repeated, of the chief inspector, who seems to believe that thousands of teachers should be sacked. I do not believe that that does anything for the morale of a profession that already feels deeply under-appreciated.
The creation of a GTC will empower teachers themselves to take charge of raising the quality and standards of the profession. There is every reason to expect that that will do more to raise professional standards and boost the quality of recruits to the profession than any amount of hectoring from the Government and the tabloid press. This development is urgently needed not only because standards of teaching need to be improved but because there is a danger of a teacher shortage developing.
As the economy picks up--we are constantly assured that it will--disaffected and demoralised teachers will leave the profession in even greater numbers for areas of employment where their skills are appreciated, while teacher training institutes will fail in the competition with other employers for good graduates to replace them.
During debate in another place there was general agreement of the need to raise educational standards by improving the quality of the work of individual classroom teachers. The Minister in the other place conceded that a GTC could make a contribution towards raising the morale and status of the teaching profession. Objections raised by Ministers included whether the body need to be statutory, the possibility of public subsidy, and how it might relate to existing statutory bodies with responsibilities in the same field.
The first query was whether, given the widespread support for the idea, such a body needed to be set up by statute. The answer is clearly in the affirmative for reasons that flow from the nature of the organisation and its necessary status and functions. To begin with, if it is to police professional conduct and discipline it must be universal in its coverage, and it must be able to apply sanctions. For such a duty to be discharged effectively, there cannot be an opportunity for the small number of teachers who may need to be subject to discipline to avoid it merely by opting out of the organisation.
On Report in the other place, it was argued that the amendment would require only that the GTC advise the Secretary of State, and therefore would not have such executive functions. The normal approach for a professional body is that being struck off the register effectively prevents that individual from being allowed to practise the profession. Given that control of access to the teaching profession is currently in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that there is no immediate proposal to change that, the amendment is phrased in the way that it is. However, it is easy to see how the internal process of a GTC to register or deregister an individual could be linked administratively with the award or removal of qualified teacher status by the DfEE. Thus, although for legal purposes the GTC would be advising the Secretary of State, it would in practice be the gatekeeper of the professional status of teachers.
There exists already a number of professional associations for teachers to join on a voluntary basis. While those bodies do much good work to promote better professional standards, they are in business primarily to protect the interests of their members. Significantly, the teacher associations are strong supporters of the establishment of a statutory GTC.
All of us say that education is our top priority. If that is the case, then the people who deliver education must be among our top professionals. It is long past the time that we need to recognise and value them as professionals, treat them as professionals, and to give them their own proper professional body in a general teaching council. Although it is late, I end where I started by saying that I believe that this is one of the most important amendments we are discussing today. A favourable wind today, even at this late hour, will send a message to the teaching profession, which will probably do more than anything else we have said tonight, important though that has been, to lift morale and start them on the road back to the proper professional status that they should enjoy. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I rise, inspired by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He is absolutely right in saying that although this is a late hour this issue is so important that it cannot be given short time. I am delighted that he has mentioned the question of the minority of poor teachers--we have read enough about them in the press--but nothing in the Bill deals with that. It appears to be in no one's sphere of responsibility; all cases are individual. The famous 15,000 dud teachers immortalised by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector are, as we have heard, neither sacked nor succoured. If one thing is worse than being either sacked or succoured it is being ignored. To that extent, the minority of poor teachers--and there is always a minority or poor teachers--are getting away with murder while the Government shilly-shally and do nothing at all about it.
The noble Lord drew attention to the words of Mr. Forth in Standing Committee D on 16th January 1997 and quoted a short phrase. Perhaps I may quote rather more. Mr. Forth said:
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, dealt with that simply; the answer is yes. Mr. Forth continued:
Note the grim and grinding reference to the taxpayers' pocket being introduced into this stage.
The Minister inquired about funding, asking whether the GTC would require public subsidy. The answer is emphatically no. It would not only be unnecessary, it would be undesirable. Independent funding for a GTC would be one guarantee of the independence of the body. Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord how it would work. There are approximately half a million teachers in this country. If they were all required to pay a registration fee of just a few pounds per year the GTC would very quickly achieve an adequate budget for its relatively modest costs.
The universal requirement for teachers to register would simultaneously keep the fee to a low level and ensure that the organisation was independent of government without becoming a creature of a mass voluntary membership. It could thereby be both professionally independent and rigorous on standards. This is another reason why the idea requires a statutory basis to work. Teachers have made it abundantly clear that they would subscribe willingly the small registration fee necessary for the benefits that would accrue, as they do in Scotland.
It was pointed out on Report in another place that there may be a need for a one-off grant to enable the GTC to get off the ground before the subscription income can be collected, and that this would have to come out of the taxpayers' back pocket. I hold up my hands and say that that is true. I cannot deny it; I concede it. But the sums would be so insignificant as not to matter and they would represent no permanent drain on public funds.
The Minister in another place also questioned how the GTC would relate to the Teacher Training Agency. It is true that a GTC would be operating in the territory now occupied by the TTA, but it would perform a complementary role. They would not be in opposition. The TTA is charged with spending public money on the recruitment, initial training and continuing professional development of teachers. That is fine; that is clear. It is a vitally important function. Since its inception it has, quite properly, conducted wide consultation on the discharge of its functions. The GTC is emphatically not a creature of government and would not be concerned with spending decisions. But it would be an extremely useful source of consultation and provide a mechanism for the dissemination of ideas and good practice. It would also have a breadth and legitimacy, through its broad representation, to gain respect for its work on upholding professional standards that a small appointed body, however well managed, would be jolly hard-pressed to emulate.
The question of the composition of the body was also raised as a conceivable possible theoretical objection by the Minister in another place. The Minister in another place asked how and by whom representatives on the council would be elected or appointed. It is true that that is not specified in the amendment, which in practice leaves the matter for the Secretary of State to decide. The shadow GTC, the unofficial body which has given itself that name, has a number of proposals on that point.
Finally, the Minister in another place accepted that the idea had merit, but he was worried about the various difficulties which he outlined and he felt that they needed to be resolved before the matter could progress. There may well be questions of detail to be resolved. There must be; there always are. But this new clause deals only in the broad principle which the Minister, Mr. Forth, said that he accepts. The detail would be for the Secretary of State to determine in implementation, if there is the political will to do it.
There are no serious obstacles that could not easily be overcome. The proposal has greater support and fewer intrinsic problems than almost any of the educational innovations forced through by this Government in the recent past. There cannot be any serious objection to the inclusion of this sensible reform in the Bill. The extent to which those speaking on behalf of the Government at earlier stages of this Bill have made heavy weather of trivial objections suggests that there must be reasons why the Government are hostile to this proposal. If so, we should like to know what they are. But if the Government accept the principle, will the Minister agree to bring back his own amendments, with the technical issues discussed and resolved, so that we can all go ahead with what everybody in the profession seems to think is a vitally important innovation which will do more than anything else, except money, to raise morale?
"The time for a GTC may have come".--[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/97; col.653.]
"The time for a general teaching council may have come and such a body may make the contribution that the honourable Member for Walton described. However, several fundamental questions would need an answer before we could progress on the lines set out in the new clause. For example, if there is such a groundswell of demand among teachers for a council, does it need to be created by statute?".
"Could it not be created by popular support among teachers? Related to that point is the issue of funding, which is not covered in the new clause. The honourable gentleman might say that it does not need to be at this stage. Would the body have to be funded by taxpayers' money or could it be funded by teachers' subscription?".
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Warnock: Having campaigned for 12 years for a general teaching council--and this is an idea that has been tried over and over again--I must rise to support the amendment.
I make just two points. At present the recruitment of teachers is falling to a new low. It is not just that the numbers are small but the quality of people coming forward to teach is dropping. Many people who go to even the best teacher training colleges, such as Homerton in Cambridge, which is part of the university, up to a point, go there against the wishes of their parents and the advice of their teachers. When they get there, they really prove themselves not to be of the quality in many cases that one would want of members of a profession on whom so much depends. It is not possible to raise the standard of recruits to the teaching profession without a change in the status in society of teachers.
My second point is simply to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said which I believe to be absolutely true. When a government or, indeed, all of us in this country genuinely want to raise the standards of education, how can it be right that we should not manifestly show that we respect, value and trust the people who deliver education? Unless we have a statutory body which is self-regulating in the profession,
we will not be showing that we trust its membership. I strongly support the amendment and only wish that it had not come up the day after it should have done.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |